From: Magnus Enbom <dot@rockstorm.se>
To: Jan Wieck <JanWieck@Yahoo.com>
Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1?
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 21:50:27 +0200
Message-ID: <20020826215027.A15218@ford.rockstorm.se> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3D6A7692.2F43B18@Yahoo.com>
References: <200208260031.g7Q0VCC24924@candle.pha.pa.us>
<3D6A7692.2F43B18@Yahoo.com>
On Mon, Aug 26, 2002 at 02:42:26PM -0400, Jan Wieck wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > I found this email from April. It properly points out that our
> > LIMIT/FOR UPDATE ordering doesn't match MySQL's, and MySQL's looks more
> > correct, specifically that the FOR UPDATE is after the LIMIT. Our
> > grammar is:
>
> How do you define "correct" for "non-standard" features? And why don't
> you ask Monty first to change to our "de-facto-standard"? ;-)
Already done that. ;-)
He said he would look into it(having MySQL accept both behaviors), but if
it would require a big change of their grammar(for a value of big), he'd rather
not. He also pointed out(as Bruce and Tom have done) that our(PG) way is
kind of backwards.
If you look at Oracle, you can see that they also have it last:
select :== subquery -> for_update_clause ;
OTOH, Oracle doesn't have LIMIT, but that's another story...
-- Magnus
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: dot@rockstorm.se, JanWieck@Yahoo.com
Subject: Re: LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1?
In-Reply-To: <20020826215027.A15218@ford.rockstorm.se>
* 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