Subject: Re: [SQL] LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1?
From: Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>, Larry Rosenman <ler@lerctr.org>,
	PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
In-Reply-To: <21006.1030543878@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <200208281352.g7SDqeB13438@candle.pha.pa.us>
	<21006.1030543878@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: 28 Aug 2002 10:24:11 -0400
Message-Id: <1030544652.3216.7.camel@camel>
Mime-Version: 1.0

On Wed, 2002-08-28 at 10:11, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > Larry Rosenman wrote:
> >> Why? If both old and new are acceptable, why not document it? 
> >> (Just curious, I'm not wedded to it). 
> 
> > Well, showing both versions adds confusion for no good reason,
> 
> Yes, particularly considering that LIMIT ... FOR UPDATE corresponds
> to the implementation behavior (LIMIT acts before FOR UPDATE) while
> FOR UPDATE ... LIMIT does not.
> 
> I concur with documenting only the preferred form (though there should
> be a note in gram.y explaining that we're supporting the old syntax
> for backward compatibility).
> 

Doesn't the need for a note explaining that we're supporting the old
syntax say to you that the documentation also needs to say we support
the old syntax? I can see the bug reports now saying "this is clearly
not what it says in the docs"...

Robert Treat