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

From: Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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: 2002-08-28 14:24:11
Message-ID: 1030544652.3216.7.camel@camel
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-sql

On Wed, 2002-08-28 at 10:11, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > Larry Rosenman wrote:
> >> Why? If both old and new are acceptable, why not document it?
> >> (Just curious, I'm not wedded to it).
>
> > Well, showing both versions adds confusion for no good reason,
>
> Yes, particularly considering that LIMIT ... FOR UPDATE corresponds
> to the implementation behavior (LIMIT acts before FOR UPDATE) while
> FOR UPDATE ... LIMIT does not.
>
> I concur with documenting only the preferred form (though there should
> be a note in gram.y explaining that we're supporting the old syntax
> for backward compatibility).
>

Doesn't the need for a note explaining that we're supporting the old
syntax say to you that the documentation also needs to say we support
the old syntax? I can see the bug reports now saying "this is clearly
not what it says in the docs"...

Robert Treat

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2002-08-28 14:25:56 Re: [SQL] LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2002-08-28 14:11:18 Re: [SQL] LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1?

Browse pgsql-sql by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2002-08-28 14:25:56 Re: [SQL] LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1?
Previous Message Mathieu Arnold 2002-08-28 14:22:37 Re: triggers and plpgsql question