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

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: [SQL] LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1?
Date
Msg-id 200208281426.g7SEQrd14994@candle.pha.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [SQL] LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1?  (Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
Robert Treat wrote:
> On Wed, 2002-08-28 at 10:11, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > > Larry Rosenman wrote:
> > >> Why? If both old and new are acceptable, why not document it? 
> > >> (Just curious, I'm not wedded to it). 
> > 
> > > Well, showing both versions adds confusion for no good reason,
> > 
> > Yes, particularly considering that LIMIT ... FOR UPDATE corresponds
> > to the implementation behavior (LIMIT acts before FOR UPDATE) while
> > FOR UPDATE ... LIMIT does not.
> > 
> > I concur with documenting only the preferred form (though there should
> > be a note in gram.y explaining that we're supporting the old syntax
> > for backward compatibility).
> > 
> 
> Doesn't the need for a note explaining that we're supporting the old
> syntax say to you that the documentation also needs to say we support
> the old syntax? I can see the bug reports now saying "this is clearly
> not what it says in the docs"...

Well, people would be using the docs only to learn the suggested syntax,
not every syntax.  COPY supports the old syntax, but has a new one for
7.3.

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610)
359-1001+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073
 


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: [SQL] LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1?
Next
From: Rod Taylor
Date:
Subject: Re: [SQL] LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1?