Received: from localhost (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25505475B69 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 17:23:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from candle.pha.pa.us (216-55-132-35.dsl.san-diego.abac.net [216.55.132.35]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19999475956 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 17:23:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from pgman@localhost) by candle.pha.pa.us (8.11.6/8.10.1) id g7RLN6b20062; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 17:23:06 -0400 (EDT) From: Bruce Momjian Message-Id: <200208272123.g7RLN6b20062@candle.pha.pa.us> Subject: Re: [SQL] LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1? In-Reply-To: To: Alvaro Herrera Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 17:23:06 -0400 (EDT) Cc: PostgreSQL-development X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL99 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS new-20020517 X-Archive-Number: 200208/1998 X-Sequence-Number: 27681 Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Bruce Momjian dijo: > > > OK, no one has commented on this, so I guess I am going to have to guess > > the group's preference. > > > > My guess, seeing as very few probably use LIMIT and FOR UPDATE together, > > is to swap them and document it in the release notes. Was I correct in > > my guess? > > Is it possible to support both ways for a couple of releases? Mention > the backwards one as "deprecated" in release notes, and drop it in 7.4. Yes, it is possible, but the grammar will have to be a little tricky, if that's OK with everyone. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073