On Wed, 2002-08-28 at 21:29, Robert Treat wrote:
>
> I think after the LIMIT and FOR UPDATE explanations (but before the note about
> SELECT privilege) you could add a note that "for backwards compatibility
> reasons the LIMIT and FOR UPDATE clauses are interchangeable" though maybe
> interchangeable isn't the best word...
How about "for backwards compatibility reasons the LIMIT and FOR UPDATE
clauses can appear in either order, I.E. LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE and FOR
UPDATE LIMIT 1 are equivalent".
>
> > For COPY, we could just put the old syntax at the bottom of the manual
> > page and mention it is depricated.
>
> In both cases I don't know that a detailed explination is needed, but a
> mention of the different possibility and perhaps a suggestion to look at an
> old version of the docs for complete details should go a long way.
I suspect that Bruce's suggestion is best, modulo a spell check :-).
>
> Robert Treat
--
Larry Rosenman http://www.lerctr.org/~ler
Phone: +1 972-414-9812 E-Mail: ler@lerctr.org
US Mail: 1905 Steamboat Springs Drive, Garland, TX 75044-6749
