From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Cc: magnus.enbom@rockstorm.se, Jan Wieck <JanWieck@Yahoo.com>
Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1?
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 18:07:07 -0400
Message-ID: <14112.1030486027@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200208272059.g7RKxKc14520@candle.pha.pa.us>
References: <200208272059.g7RKxKc14520@candle.pha.pa.us>
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> 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?
regards, tom lane
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: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, pgman@candle.pha.pa.us, JanWieck@Yahoo.com
Subject: Re: LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1?
In-Reply-To: <14112.1030486027@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* 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