From: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Message-Id: <200208300318.g7U3Iwj16516@candle.pha.pa.us>
Subject: Re: [SQL] LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1?
In-Reply-To: <21386.1030599241@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 23:18:58 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: Rod Taylor <rbt@zort.ca>, Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>,
	Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>, Larry Rosenman <ler@lerctr.org>,
	PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > Rod Taylor wrote:
> >> The above, or something along those lines, would show order
> >> independence.
> 
> > It is this kind of added abstraction that I definitely want to avoid. 
> 
> I agree.  We want to promote the LIMIT/FOR UPDATE ordering, not treat
> them on an even footing.  I think it's quite reasonable to show only
> the preferred ordering in the synopsis, and mention the other somewhere
> in the body of the man page.
> 
> BTW, I'd like to see the old COPY syntax still documented, but in the
> same way --- it need not be in the synopsis, just somewhere where people
> can see it without having to refer back to old manuals.

Both done.

-- 
  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