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

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

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>,magnus(dot)enbom(at)rockstorm(dot)se, Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>,PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [SQL] LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1?
Date: 2002-08-28 04:29:16
Message-ID: 17588.1030508956@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-sql
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.

But I think it'd be sufficient to document only the new syntax.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Neil ConwayDate: 2002-08-28 04:33:26
Subject: Re: fix for palloc() of user-supplied length
Previous:From: Serguei MokhovDate: 2002-08-28 04:12:26
Subject: Re: fix for palloc() of user-supplied length

pgsql-sql by date

Next:From: Mathieu ArnoldDate: 2002-08-28 06:42:13
Subject: Re: triggers and plpgsql question
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2002-08-28 04:14:38
Subject: Re: Calculation Error on Epoch?

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