Offset patch #270
Merged
Offset patch #270
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
/cc @tenderlove |
|
Looks like Arel uses 18446744073709551615 instead of 999999999 for this case. Want to just switch the value to that and I'll pull this in? |
|
Done. Let me know if there's anything else! |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
If you try to query an object with an offset (but no specified limit), the gem should automatically insert a limit as well into the sql syntax (limit is requred for an offset).
Not sure if there's a better way than just putting
999999999as the limit - any better ideas?