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

On Wednesday 28 August 2002 09:14 pm, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Perhaps we could compromise on showing only the new syntax in the
> > <synopsis> part of the man page, and then mentioning somewhere in the
> > body of the page that the other order is deprecated but accepted for
> > backwards compatibility. This same approach would work well for
> > documenting COPY's old syntax.
>
> Yes, I thought about that. People want to show both SELECT syntaxes,
> but how would you do that --- show the SELECT syntax twice with just
> those last two clauses reversed --- yuck.
>
> We could easily mention that we allow both clause orderings in the text
> somewhere.
>

I think after the LIMIT and FOR UPDATE explanations (but before the note about
SELECT privilege) you could add a note that "for backwards compatibility
reasons the LIMIT and FOR UPDATE clauses are interchangeable" though maybe
interchangeable isn't the best word...

> For COPY, we could just put the old syntax at the bottom of the manual
> page and mention it is depricated.

In both cases I don't know that a detailed explination is needed, but a
mention of the different possibility and perhaps a suggestion to look at an
old version of the docs for complete details should go a long way.

Robert Treat