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

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Rod Taylor <rbt(at)zort(dot)ca>, 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 15:16:20
Message-ID: 200208291516.g7TFGKQ07819@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-sql

Tom Lane wrote:
> BTW, I'd like to see the old COPY syntax still documented, but in the
> same way --- it need not be in the synopsis, just somewhere where people
> can see it without having to refer back to old manuals.

Agreed.

--
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 Robert Treat 2002-08-29 16:09:58 Re: [HACKERS] Proposed GUC Variable
Previous Message Paul Cowan 2002-08-29 13:53:12 ms word 2002

Browse pgsql-sql by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Patnude 2002-08-29 15:35:42 Why must the function that a trigger calls return "opaque" ???
Previous Message Bruno Wolff III 2002-08-29 13:41:29 Re: signed/unsigned integers