Received: from localhost (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46D3C476124 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 10:12:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (unknown [192.204.191.242]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 299AA475E1D for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 10:11:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g7SEBIZM021007; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 10:11:18 -0400 (EDT) To: Bruce Momjian Cc: Larry Rosenman , PostgreSQL-development Subject: Re: [SQL] LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1? In-reply-to: <200208281352.g7SDqeB13438@candle.pha.pa.us> References: <200208281352.g7SDqeB13438@candle.pha.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Bruce Momjian message dated "Wed, 28 Aug 2002 09:52:40 -0400" Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 10:11:18 -0400 Message-ID: <21006.1030543878@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS new-20020517 X-Archive-Number: 200208/2049 X-Sequence-Number: 27732 Bruce Momjian 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