From: Larry Rosenman <ler@lerctr.org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Cc: magnus.enbom@rockstorm.se, Jan Wieck <JanWieck@Yahoo.com>
Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1?
Date: 27 Aug 2002 17:11:39 -0500
Message-ID: <1030486333.410.54.camel@lerlaptop.iadfw.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <14112.1030486027@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <200208272059.g7RKxKc14520@candle.pha.pa.us>
<14112.1030486027@sss.pgh.pa.us>
On Tue, 2002-08-27 at 17:07, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > My guess, seeing as very few probably use LIMIT and FOR UPDATE together,
> > is to swap them and document it in the release notes.
>
> That will surely piss someone off. Can't you try a little harder to
> support either order?
If you change this you break me. I do this **A LOT** in the IP address
allocation system I wrote.
PLEASE DO NOT BREAK EXISTING APPS WITHOUT AT LEAST ONE RELEASE CYCLE'S
WARNING, and preferably NOT AT ALL.
--
Larry Rosenman http://www.lerctr.org/~ler
Phone: +1 972-414-9812 E-Mail: ler@lerctr.org
US Mail: 1905 Steamboat Springs Drive, Garland, TX 75044-6749
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Cc: ler@lerctr.org, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, pgman@candle.pha.pa.us, JanWieck@Yahoo.com
Subject: Re: LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1?
In-Reply-To: <1030486333.410.54.camel@lerlaptop.iadfw.net>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox