Received: from localhost (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26858475C80
	for <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>;
	Wed, 28 Aug 2002 19:54:29 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (unknown [192.204.191.242])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90E8C475840
	for <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>;
	Wed, 28 Aug 2002 19:54:28 -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 g7SNroZM022788;
	Wed, 28 Aug 2002 19:53:50 -0400 (EDT)
To: Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>,
	Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>, Rod Taylor <rbt@zort.ca>,
	Larry Rosenman <ler@lerctr.org>,
	PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [SQL] LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1? 
In-reply-to: <200208281927.46634.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net> 
References: <200208282106.g7SL6wR03197@candle.pha.pa.us>
	<200208281927.46634.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>
Comments: In-reply-to Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>
	message dated "Wed, 28 Aug 2002 19:27:46 -0400"
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 19:53:50 -0400
Message-ID: <22787.1030578830@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS new-20020517
X-Archive-Number: 200208/2087
X-Sequence-Number: 27770

>> If you would like a vote, we can do that, but as I remember we had the
>> same issue with COPY and we got most votes to just show the best syntax.

Perhaps we could compromise on showing only the new syntax in the <synopsis>
part of the man page, and then mentioning somewhere in the body of the
page that the other order is deprecated but accepted for backwards
compatibility.  This same approach would work well for documenting
COPY's old syntax.

			regards, tom lane