On Mon, Aug 26, 2002 at 02:42:26PM -0400, Jan Wieck wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > I found this email from April. It properly points out that our
> > LIMIT/FOR UPDATE ordering doesn't match MySQL's, and MySQL's looks more
> > correct, specifically that the FOR UPDATE is after the LIMIT. Our
> > grammar is:
>
> How do you define "correct" for "non-standard" features? And why don't
> you ask Monty first to change to our "de-facto-standard"? ;-)
Already done that. ;-)
He said he would look into it(having MySQL accept both behaviors), but if
it would require a big change of their grammar(for a value of big), he'd rather
not. He also pointed out(as Bruce and Tom have done) that our(PG) way is
kind of backwards.
If you look at Oracle, you can see that they also have it last:
select :== subquery -> for_update_clause ;
OTOH, Oracle doesn't have LIMIT, but that's another story...
-- Magnus
