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 200208281438.g7SEcw515550@candle.pha.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [SQL] LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1?  (Rod Taylor <rbt@zort.ca>)
Responses Re: [SQL] LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1?
List pgsql-hackers
Rod Taylor wrote:
> > 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"...
> 
> 
> Yes, both should be documented. But mark the non-preferred version as
> depreciated and disappearing soon (whether it does or not is another
> story) but discourage people from using it.

That SELECT syntax is already too confusing.  I don't want to add an
additional documentation specification that provides no value to users. 
One of the PostgreSQL goals is to not throw every single option at users
but to make logical decisions on tuning values and features to limit the
complexity shown to the user.

--  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: "Marc G. Fournier"
Date:
Subject: Re: tell Bugtraq about 7.2.2
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: [SQL] LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1?