From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Cc: Rod Taylor <rbt@zort.ca>
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 01:34:01 -0400
Message-ID: <21386.1030599241@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200208290503.g7T535o00108@candle.pha.pa.us>
References: <200208290503.g7T535o00108@candle.pha.pa.us>
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.
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, rbt@zort.ca, 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: <21386.1030599241@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