Received: from localhost (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7BD1475C38 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 19:37:10 -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 DAD424759A1 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 19:37:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from pgman@localhost) by candle.pha.pa.us (8.11.6/8.10.1) id g7RNIP325016; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 19:18:25 -0400 (EDT) From: Bruce Momjian Message-Id: <200208272318.g7RNIP325016@candle.pha.pa.us> Subject: Re: LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1? In-Reply-To: <14112.1030486027@sss.pgh.pa.us> To: Tom Lane Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 19:18:25 -0400 (EDT) Cc: magnus.enbom@rockstorm.se, Jan Wieck , pgsql-sql@postgresql.org 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: 200208/371 X-Sequence-Number: 9217 Tom Lane wrote: > 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? Sure. I just needed someone to say they want it before doing the work. -- 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