Received: from localhost (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E5A4475F2D for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 18:12:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lerlaptop.iadfw.net (lerlaptop.iadfw.net [206.66.13.21]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFA43475F0B for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 18:12:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lerlaptop.iadfw.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g7RMBdjk002416; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 17:11:55 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ler@lerctr.org) Subject: Re: LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1? From: Larry Rosenman To: Tom Lane Cc: Bruce Momjian , magnus.enbom@rockstorm.se, Jan Wieck , pgsql-sql@postgresql.org In-Reply-To: <14112.1030486027@sss.pgh.pa.us> References: <200208272059.g7RKxKc14520@candle.pha.pa.us> <14112.1030486027@sss.pgh.pa.us> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.8 Date: 27 Aug 2002 17:11:39 -0500 Message-Id: <1030486333.410.54.camel@lerlaptop.iadfw.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-milter (http://amavis.org/) X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS new-20020517 X-Archive-Number: 200208/367 X-Sequence-Number: 9213 On Tue, 2002-08-27 at 17:07, Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian 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