Received: from localhost (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BE0F475AFB for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 01:03:50 -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 24A82475806 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 01:03:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from pgman@localhost) by candle.pha.pa.us (8.11.6/8.10.1) id g7T535o00108; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 01:03:05 -0400 (EDT) From: Bruce Momjian Message-Id: <200208290503.g7T535o00108@candle.pha.pa.us> Subject: Re: [SQL] LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1? In-Reply-To: <1030587488.1693.11.camel@jester> To: Rod Taylor Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 01:03:05 -0400 (EDT) Cc: Tom Lane , Robert Treat , Peter Eisentraut , 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: 200208/2108 X-Sequence-Number: 27791 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 .... [ , ... ] > > : > [ 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