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 22787.1030578830@sss.pgh.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>)
Responses Re: [SQL] LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1?  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
>> If you would like a vote, we can do that, but as I remember we had the
>> same issue with COPY and we got most votes to just show the best syntax.

Perhaps we could compromise on showing only the new syntax in the <synopsis>
part of the man page, and then mentioning somewhere in the body of the
page that the other order is deprecated but accepted for backwards
compatibility.  This same approach would work well for documenting
COPY's old syntax.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Treat
Date:
Subject: Re: [SQL] LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1?
Next
From: "Matthew T. O'Connor"
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] fix for palloc() of user-supplied length