| 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: | 2002-08-30 03:18:58 |
| Message-ID: | 200208300318.g7U3Iwj16516@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-sql |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > Rod Taylor wrote:
> >> The above, or something along those lines, would show order
> >> independence.
>
> > It is this kind of added abstraction that I definitely want to avoid.
>
> I agree. We want to promote the LIMIT/FOR UPDATE ordering, not treat
> them on an even footing. I think it's quite reasonable to show only
> the preferred ordering in the synopsis, and mention the other somewhere
> in the body of the man page.
>
> 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.
Both done.
--
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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-08-30 03:27:39 | Reporting query duration |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-08-30 03:07:03 | Re: tweaking MemSet() performance |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bhuvan A | 2002-08-30 05:31:49 | Re: record count |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2002-08-29 20:45:25 | Re: query problem |