Received: from localhost (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 698004763D9 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 17:07:31 -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 C02DF4763D6 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 17:07:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from pgman@localhost) by candle.pha.pa.us (8.11.6/8.10.1) id g7SL6wR03197; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 17:06:58 -0400 (EDT) From: Bruce Momjian Message-Id: <200208282106.g7SL6wR03197@candle.pha.pa.us> Subject: Re: [SQL] LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1? In-Reply-To: To: Peter Eisentraut Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 17:06:58 -0400 (EDT) Cc: Rod Taylor , Robert Treat , Tom Lane , Larry Rosenman , 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: 200208/2079 X-Sequence-Number: 27762 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