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 200208281441.g7SEfGE15627@candle.pha.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [SQL] LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
OK, applied with documenation updates showing only the new syntax.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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).
> 
>             regards, tom lane
> 

--  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: "Henshall, Stuart - WCP"
Date:
Subject: Re: tell Bugtraq about 7.2.2