From: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Cc: Rod Taylor <rbt@zort.ca>
Cc: Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>
Cc: 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 17:06:58 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <200208282106.g7SL6wR03197@candle.pha.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0208282239360.6465-100000@localhost.localdomain>
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
>
> > That SELECT syntax is already too confusing. I don't want to add an
> > additional documentation specification that provides no value to users.
>
> The value of the documentation, especially the reference manual, is that
> it provides an authorative source of what works and what doesn't. It is
> not the place to hide transitional phases. Moreover, the least possible
> value you could provide to users is to gratuitously[*] change the syntax
> and not tell anyone about it.
>
> [*] It's not like this will magically gain us MySQL or Oracle
> compatibility.
>
> In fact, the recent trend in the SQL commands has been to accept most
> options in any order, so it would only be logical to accept the LIMIT and
> FOR UDPATE options in any order and document that fact. There is a
> separate section in each reference page for information about which format
> is compatible with what.
>
> But please remember that our foremost goal is to be compatible, both in
> actuality and in mindset, with PostgreSQL, not with any other product that
> happened to use a slightly different syntax at their whim.
>
> Therefore I request that both forms be accepted and documented as equally
> valid.
You made the same argument for the COPY syntax, that we publish both the
old and new syntaxes, and I resisted because I felt most people would
rather just see the best syntax. I don't see the documentation as
showing every possible syntax because that really doesn't benefit users,
or should I say confused more than it helps.
If you would like a vote, we can do that, but as I remember we had the
same issue with COPY and we got most votes to just show the best syntax.
--
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, peter_e@gmx.net, rbt@zort.ca, xzilla@users.sourceforge.net, 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: <200208282106.g7SL6wR03197@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