Received: from localhost (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6D45475843 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 00:29:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (unknown [192.204.191.242]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3587947580B for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 00:29:28 -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 g7S4TGZM017589; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 00:29:16 -0400 (EDT) To: Bruce Momjian Cc: Christopher Kings-Lynne , magnus.enbom@rockstorm.se, Jan Wieck , PostgreSQL-development Subject: Re: [SQL] LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1? In-reply-to: <200208280245.g7S2jO803463@candle.pha.pa.us> References: <200208280245.g7S2jO803463@candle.pha.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Bruce Momjian message dated "Tue, 27 Aug 2002 22:45:24 -0400" Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 00:29:16 -0400 Message-ID: <17588.1030508956@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS new-20020517 X-Archive-Number: 200208/2031 X-Sequence-Number: 27714 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. But I think it'd be sufficient to document only the new syntax. regards, tom lane