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

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Rod Taylor <rbt(at)zort(dot)ca>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Larry Rosenman <ler(at)lerctr(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [SQL] LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1?
Date: 2002-08-29 05:03:05
Message-ID: 200208290503.g7T535o00108@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-sql

Rod Taylor wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> select .... [ <stmt group>, ... ]
>
> <stmt group> :
> [ FOR UPDATE | LIMIT ]
>
>
> The above, or something along those lines, would show order
> independence.

It is this kind of added abstraction that I definitely want to avoid.
SELECT has enough complexity without adding to it. If this change was
required, I would suggest just backing out the entire patch and leaving
it alone.

--
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

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jukka Holappa 2002-08-29 05:15:20 Re: [Resend] Sprintf() auditing and a patch
Previous Message Neil Conway 2002-08-29 03:49:19 Re: [Resend] Sprintf() auditing and a patch

Browse pgsql-sql by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2002-08-29 05:34:01 Re: [SQL] LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1?
Previous Message JOE 2002-08-29 04:47:20 union optimization in views