From: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Larry Rosenman <ler@lerctr.org>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [SQL] LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1?
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 10:41:16 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <200208281441.g7SEfGE15627@candle.pha.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <21006.1030543878@sss.pgh.pa.us>
OK, applied with documenation updates showing only the new syntax.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > Larry Rosenman wrote:
> >> Why? If both old and new are acceptable, why not document it?
> >> (Just curious, I'm not wedded to it).
>
> > Well, showing both versions adds confusion for no good reason,
>
> Yes, particularly considering that LIMIT ... FOR UPDATE corresponds
> to the implementation behavior (LIMIT acts before FOR UPDATE) while
> FOR UPDATE ... LIMIT does not.
>
> I concur with documenting only the preferred form (though there should
> be a note in gram.y explaining that we're supporting the old syntax
> for backward compatibility).
>
> regards, tom lane
>
--
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
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: pgman@candle.pha.pa.us, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, ler@lerctr.org, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [SQL] LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1?
In-Reply-To: <200208281441.g7SEfGE15627@candle.pha.pa.us>
* 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