Re: LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1?

From: Larry Rosenman <ler(at)lerctr(dot)org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, magnus(dot)enbom(at)rockstorm(dot)se, Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>, pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1?
Date: 2002-08-27 22:11:39
Message-ID: 1030486333.410.54.camel@lerlaptop.iadfw.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-sql

On Tue, 2002-08-27 at 17:07, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > My guess, seeing as very few probably use LIMIT and FOR UPDATE together,
> > is to swap them and document it in the release notes.
>
> That will surely piss someone off. Can't you try a little harder to
> support either order?
If you change this you break me. I do this **A LOT** in the IP address
allocation system I wrote.

PLEASE DO NOT BREAK EXISTING APPS WITHOUT AT LEAST ONE RELEASE CYCLE'S
WARNING, and preferably NOT AT ALL.

--
Larry Rosenman http://www.lerctr.org/~ler
Phone: +1 972-414-9812 E-Mail: ler(at)lerctr(dot)org
US Mail: 1905 Steamboat Springs Drive, Garland, TX 75044-6749

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Neil Conway 2002-08-27 22:12:44 fix for palloc() of user-supplied length
Previous Message Tom Lane 2002-08-27 22:10:27 Re: Open 7.3 items

Browse pgsql-sql by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2002-08-27 22:13:54 Re: IDENT authentication problem
Previous Message Ligia Pimentel 2002-08-27 22:10:13 Re: Problems with version 7.1, could they be fixed in 7.2?