Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [SQL] LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1?

From: Larry Rosenman <ler(at)lerctr(dot)org>
To: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [SQL] LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1?
Date: 2002-08-28 11:39:29
Message-ID: 1030534769.478.3.camel@lerlaptop.lerctr.org (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-sql
On Tue, 2002-08-27 at 23:29, Tom Lane wrote: 
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > OK, patch attached.  It was actually easier than I thought.  We have to
> > decide if we are going to remove the old syntax in 7.4.
> 
> I'd say "no".  There's no compelling reason to break backward
> compatibility here --- certainly a couple more productions in gram.y
> isn't enough reason.
I agree here.  Why intentionally break something that doesn't violate
standards, and would cause people to have to look at all their queries.
I personally hope y'all do *NOT* remove the old syntax. 
> 
> But I think it'd be sufficient to document only the new syntax.
Why? If both old and new are acceptable, why not document it? 
(Just curious, I'm not wedded to it). 


-- 
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

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2002-08-28 13:14:43
Subject: Re: Open 7.3 items
Previous:From: Sir Mordred The TraitorDate: 2002-08-28 09:51:31
Subject: @(#)Mordre Labs advisory 0x0005: Several buffer overruns in PostgreSQL

pgsql-sql by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2002-08-28 13:52:40
Subject: Re: [SQL] LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1?
Previous:From: Ivan JordanovDate: 2002-08-28 11:27:09
Subject: Can I use "UPDATE" sql statement in trigger before or after update ?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group