From: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
To: Rod Taylor <rbt@zort.ca>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
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: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 01:03:05 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <200208290503.g7T535o00108@candle.pha.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1030587488.1693.11.camel@jester>
Rod Taylor wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> select .... [ <stmt group>, ... ]
>
> <stmt group> :
> [ FOR UPDATE | LIMIT ]
>
>
> The above, or something along those lines, would show order
> independence.
It is this kind of added abstraction that I definitely want to avoid.
SELECT has enough complexity without adding to it. If this change was
required, I would suggest just backing out the entire patch and leaving
it alone.
--
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, rbt@zort.ca, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, xzilla@users.sourceforge.net, peter_e@gmx.net, ler@lerctr.org, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [SQL] LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1?
In-Reply-To: <200208290503.g7T535o00108@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