From: Larry Rosenman <ler@lerctr.org>
To: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [SQL] LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1?
Date: 28 Aug 2002 06:39:29 -0500
Message-ID: <1030534769.478.3.camel@lerlaptop.lerctr.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <17588.1030508956@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <200208280245.g7S2jO803463@candle.pha.pa.us>
<17588.1030508956@sss.pgh.pa.us>
On Tue, 2002-08-27 at 23:29, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > OK, patch attached. It was actually easier than I thought. We have to
> > decide if we are going to remove the old syntax in 7.4.
>
> I'd say "no". There's no compelling reason to break backward
> compatibility here --- certainly a couple more productions in gram.y
> isn't enough reason.
I agree here. Why intentionally break something that doesn't violate
standards, and would cause people to have to look at all their queries.
I personally hope y'all do *NOT* remove the old syntax.
>
> But I think it'd be sufficient to document only the new syntax.
Why? If both old and new are acceptable, why not document it?
(Just curious, I'm not wedded to it).
--
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, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [SQL] LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1?
In-Reply-To: <1030534769.478.3.camel@lerlaptop.lerctr.org>
* 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