Re: LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: magnus(dot)enbom(at)rockstorm(dot)se, Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>, pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1?
Date: 2002-08-27 22:07:07
Message-ID: 14112.1030486027@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-sql

Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> My guess, seeing as very few probably use LIMIT and FOR UPDATE together,
> is to swap them and document it in the release notes.

That will surely piss someone off. Can't you try a little harder to
support either order?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2002-08-27 22:08:40 Re: Proposed GUC Variable
Previous Message D'Arcy J.M. Cain 2002-08-27 22:05:29 Re: MemoryContextAlloc: invalid request size 1934906735

Browse pgsql-sql by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ligia Pimentel 2002-08-27 22:10:13 Re: Problems with version 7.1, could they be fixed in 7.2?
Previous Message Wei Weng 2002-08-27 21:26:59 IDENT authentication problem