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

Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
>
> > That SELECT syntax is already too confusing. I don't want to add an
> > additional documentation specification that provides no value to users.
>
> The value of the documentation, especially the reference manual, is that
> it provides an authorative source of what works and what doesn't. It is
> not the place to hide transitional phases. Moreover, the least possible
> value you could provide to users is to gratuitously[*] change the syntax
> and not tell anyone about it.
>
> [*] It's not like this will magically gain us MySQL or Oracle
> compatibility.
>
> In fact, the recent trend in the SQL commands has been to accept most
> options in any order, so it would only be logical to accept the LIMIT and
> FOR UDPATE options in any order and document that fact. There is a
> separate section in each reference page for information about which format
> is compatible with what.
>
> But please remember that our foremost goal is to be compatible, both in
> actuality and in mindset, with PostgreSQL, not with any other product that
> happened to use a slightly different syntax at their whim.
>
> Therefore I request that both forms be accepted and documented as equally
> valid.

You made the same argument for the COPY syntax, that we publish both the
old and new syntaxes, and I resisted because I felt most people would
rather just see the best syntax. I don't see the documentation as
showing every possible syntax because that really doesn't benefit users,
or should I say confused more than it helps.

If you would like a vote, we can do that, but as I remember we had the
same issue with COPY and we got most votes to just show the best syntax.

--
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