Re: [SQL] LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [SQL] LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1?
Date
Msg-id 17588.1030508956@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [SQL] LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1?  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
Responses Re: [SQL] LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1?  (Larry Rosenman <ler@lerctr.org>)
List pgsql-hackers
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> OK, patch attached.  It was actually easier than I thought.  We have to
> decide if we are going to remove the old syntax in 7.4.

I'd say "no".  There's no compelling reason to break backward
compatibility here --- certainly a couple more productions in gram.y
isn't enough reason.

But I think it'd be sufficient to document only the new syntax.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] fix for palloc() of user-supplied length
Next
From: Marc Lavergne
Date:
Subject: Re: C vs. C++ contributions