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

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 (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-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

pgsql-hackers by date

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

pgsql-sql by date

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

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