Received: from localhost (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E3E34762B5 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 18:07:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (unknown [192.204.191.242]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 691BF476289 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 18:07:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g7RM78ZM014113; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 18:07:08 -0400 (EDT) To: Bruce Momjian Cc: magnus.enbom@rockstorm.se, Jan Wieck , pgsql-sql@postgresql.org Subject: Re: LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1? In-reply-to: <200208272059.g7RKxKc14520@candle.pha.pa.us> References: <200208272059.g7RKxKc14520@candle.pha.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Bruce Momjian message dated "Tue, 27 Aug 2002 16:59:20 -0400" Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 18:07:07 -0400 Message-ID: <14112.1030486027@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS new-20020517 X-Archive-Number: 200208/366 X-Sequence-Number: 9212 Bruce Momjian 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