From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
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 10:11:18 -0400
Message-ID: <21006.1030543878@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200208281352.g7SDqeB13438@candle.pha.pa.us>
References: <200208281352.g7SDqeB13438@candle.pha.pa.us>
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> Larry Rosenman wrote:
>> Why? If both old and new are acceptable, why not document it?
>> (Just curious, I'm not wedded to it).
> Well, showing both versions adds confusion for no good reason,
Yes, particularly considering that LIMIT ... FOR UPDATE corresponds
to the implementation behavior (LIMIT acts before FOR UPDATE) while
FOR UPDATE ... LIMIT does not.
I concur with documenting only the preferred form (though there should
be a note in gram.y explaining that we're supporting the old syntax
for backward compatibility).
regards, tom lane
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: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, pgman@candle.pha.pa.us, ler@lerctr.org, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [SQL] LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1?
In-Reply-To: <21006.1030543878@sss.pgh.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