Received: from localhost (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E87F4476222
	for <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>;
	Wed, 28 Aug 2002 22:18:02 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from squire.barchord.com (squire.barchord.com [216.194.67.18])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52F03476221
	for <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>;
	Wed, 28 Aug 2002 22:18:02 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.253]
	(CPE00508b028d7d-CM00803785c5e0.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com
	[24.103.51.175]) by squire.barchord.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id BA40A103; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 22:18:05 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [SQL] LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1?
From: Rod Taylor <rbt@zort.ca>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>,
	Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>, Larry Rosenman <ler@lerctr.org>,
	PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
In-Reply-To: <200208290114.g7T1EGO29372@candle.pha.pa.us>
References: <200208290114.g7T1EGO29372@candle.pha.pa.us>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.8 
Date: 28 Aug 2002 22:18:07 -0400
Message-Id: <1030587488.1693.11.camel@jester>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS new-20020517
X-Archive-Number: 200208/2101
X-Sequence-Number: 27784


> Yes, I thought about that.  People want to show both SELECT syntaxes,
> but how would you do that --- show the SELECT syntax twice with just
> those last two clauses reversed --- yuck.

select .... [ <stmt group>, ... ]

<stmt group> :
   [ FOR UPDATE | LIMIT ]


The above, or something along those lines, would show order
independence.


> We could easily mention that we allow both clause orderings in the text
> somewhere.