From: Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Cc: Rod Taylor <rbt@zort.ca>
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 22:29:14 -0400
Message-ID: <200208282229.14628.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200208290114.g7T1EGO29372@candle.pha.pa.us>
References: <200208290114.g7T1EGO29372@candle.pha.pa.us>
On Wednesday 28 August 2002 09:14 pm, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Perhaps we could compromise on showing only the new syntax in the
> > <synopsis> part of the man page, and then mentioning somewhere in the
> > body of the page that the other order is deprecated but accepted for
> > backwards compatibility. This same approach would work well for
> > documenting COPY's old syntax.
>
> Yes, I thought about that. People want to show both SELECT syntaxes,
> but how would you do that --- show the SELECT syntax twice with just
> those last two clauses reversed --- yuck.
>
> We could easily mention that we allow both clause orderings in the text
> somewhere.
>
I think after the LIMIT and FOR UPDATE explanations (but before the note about
SELECT privilege) you could add a note that "for backwards compatibility
reasons the LIMIT and FOR UPDATE clauses are interchangeable" though maybe
interchangeable isn't the best word...
> For COPY, we could just put the old syntax at the bottom of the manual
> page and mention it is depricated.
In both cases I don't know that a detailed explination is needed, but a
mention of the different possibility and perhaps a suggestion to look at an
old version of the docs for complete details should go a long way.
Robert Treat
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: xzilla@users.sourceforge.net, pgman@candle.pha.pa.us, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, peter_e@gmx.net, rbt@zort.ca, ler@lerctr.org, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [SQL] LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1?
In-Reply-To: <200208282229.14628.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>
* 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