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

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)atentus(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [SQL] LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1?
Date: 2002-08-27 21:23:06
Message-ID: 200208272123.g7RLN6b20062@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-sql

Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Bruce Momjian dijo:
>
> > OK, no one has commented on this, so I guess I am going to have to guess
> > the group's preference.
> >
> > My guess, seeing as very few probably use LIMIT and FOR UPDATE together,
> > is to swap them and document it in the release notes. Was I correct in
> > my guess?
>
> Is it possible to support both ways for a couple of releases? Mention
> the backwards one as "deprecated" in release notes, and drop it in 7.4.

Yes, it is possible, but the grammar will have to be a little tricky, if
that's OK with everyone.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2002-08-27 21:24:01 Re: [HACKERS] CREATE TEMP TABLE .... ON COMMIT
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2002-08-27 21:21:42 Re: [SQL] LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1?

Browse pgsql-sql by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message mark carew 2002-08-27 21:24:44 Re: Problems with version 7.1, could they be fixed in 7.2?
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2002-08-27 21:21:42 Re: [SQL] LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1?