From: Vivek Khera <khera@kcilink.com>
To: pgman@candle.pha.pa.us
Subject: Re: LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1?
Date: 28 Aug 2002 11:28:21 -0400
Message-ID: <x7n0r7huju.fsf@onceler.kciLink.com> (raw)
References: <200208272059.g7RKxKc14520@candle.pha.pa.us>
>>>>> "BM" == Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
BM> OK, no one has commented on this, so I guess I am going to have to guess
BM> the group's preference.
BM> My guess, seeing as very few probably use LIMIT and FOR UPDATE together,
BM> is to swap them and document it in the release notes. Was I correct in
BM> my guess?
My preference is to allow both orders for one release, then only allow
the "correct" order in the next. be sure to absolutely make this a
big red notice in the changelog.
I just scanned my main app and found two instances where I use FOR
UPDATE LIMIT 1. These are trivial to change, but difficult to do at
the same moment I update the db server. One of these I probably don't
even need the LIMIT...
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vivek Khera, Ph.D. Khera Communications, Inc.
Internet: khera@kciLink.com Rockville, MD +1-240-453-8497
AIM: vivekkhera Y!: vivek_khera http://www.khera.org/~vivek/
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: khera@kcilink.com, pgman@candle.pha.pa.us
Subject: Re: LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1?
In-Reply-To: <x7n0r7huju.fsf@onceler.kciLink.com>
* 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