Received: from localhost (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C12247628D
	for <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>;
	Wed, 28 Aug 2002 22:13:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from svr-ganmtc-appserv-mgmt.ncf.coxexpress.com
	(svr-ganmtc-appserv-mgmt.ncf.coxexpress.com [24.136.46.5])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47ED9476279
	for <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>;
	Wed, 28 Aug 2002 22:13:25 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from linuxbox.ncf.coxexpress.com
	(cpe-gan-68-101-95-99-cmcpe.ncf.coxexpress.com [68.101.95.99])
	by svr-ganmtc-appserv-mgmt.ncf.coxexpress.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with
	ESMTP id g7T2CpQ18847; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 22:12:51 -0400
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
From: Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>,
	Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Subject: Re: [SQL] LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1?
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 22:29:14 -0400
User-Agent: KMail/1.4.2
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>, Rod Taylor <rbt@zort.ca>,
	Larry Rosenman <ler@lerctr.org>,
	PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
References: <200208290114.g7T1EGO29372@candle.pha.pa.us>
In-Reply-To: <200208290114.g7T1EGO29372@candle.pha.pa.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <200208282229.14628.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS new-20020517
X-Archive-Number: 200208/2099
X-Sequence-Number: 27782

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 ab=
out=20
SELECT privilege) you could add a note that "for backwards compatibility=20
reasons the LIMIT and FOR UPDATE clauses are interchangeable" though maybe=
=20
interchangeable isn't the best word...=20

> 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=20
mention of the different possibility and perhaps a suggestion to look at an=
=20
old version of the docs for complete details should go a long way.

Robert Treat