Received: from localhost (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2545475CB6 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 11:28:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from news.hub.org (news.hub.org [64.49.215.80]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68F99475CA6 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 11:28:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: by news.hub.org (Postfix, from userid 8) id 0F209381952; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 11:28:17 -0400 (EDT) From: Vivek Khera X-Newsgroups: comp.databases.postgresql.sql Subject: Re: LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1? Date: 28 Aug 2002 11:28:21 -0400 Organization: Khera Communications, Inc., Rockville, MD Lines: 23 Message-ID: References: <200208272059.g7RKxKc14520@candle.pha.pa.us> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Complaints-To: news@hub.org To: pgman@candle.pha.pa.us (Bruce Momjian) User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Honest Recruiter) To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS new-20020517 X-Archive-Number: 200208/394 X-Sequence-Number: 9240 >>>>> "BM" == Bruce Momjian 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/