Received: from localhost (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 440CB475EA4 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 07:39:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lerlaptop.lerctr.org (lerlaptop.lerctr.org [207.158.72.14]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC4BB475E32 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 07:39:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lerlaptop.lerctr.org (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g7SBdTfP000538 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 06:39:29 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ler@lerctr.org) Subject: Re: [SQL] LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1? From: Larry Rosenman To: PostgreSQL-development In-Reply-To: <17588.1030508956@sss.pgh.pa.us> References: <200208280245.g7S2jO803463@candle.pha.pa.us> <17588.1030508956@sss.pgh.pa.us> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.8 Date: 28 Aug 2002 06:39:29 -0500 Message-Id: <1030534769.478.3.camel@lerlaptop.lerctr.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-milter (http://amavis.org/) X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS new-20020517 X-Archive-Number: 200208/2043 X-Sequence-Number: 27726 On Tue, 2002-08-27 at 23:29, Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian 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