Received: from localhost (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 355F9475A19 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 01:34:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (unknown [192.204.191.242]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93F6B475806 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 01:34:44 -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 g7T5Y1ZM021387; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 01:34:01 -0400 (EDT) To: Bruce Momjian Cc: Rod Taylor , Robert Treat , Peter Eisentraut , Larry Rosenman , PostgreSQL-development Subject: Re: [SQL] LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1? In-reply-to: <200208290503.g7T535o00108@candle.pha.pa.us> References: <200208290503.g7T535o00108@candle.pha.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Bruce Momjian message dated "Thu, 29 Aug 2002 01:03:05 -0400" Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 01:34:01 -0400 Message-ID: <21386.1030599241@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS new-20020517 X-Archive-Number: 200208/2110 X-Sequence-Number: 27793 Bruce Momjian 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