Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [SQL] 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: 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 05:34:01
Message-ID: 21386.1030599241@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-sql
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.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Joe ConwayDate: 2002-08-29 06:53:55
Subject: SRF memory mgmt patch (was [HACKERS] Concern about memory management with SRFs)
Previous:From: Neil ConwayDate: 2002-08-29 05:27:41
Subject: tweaking MemSet() performance

pgsql-sql by date

Next:From: Yon Den Baguse NgarsoDate: 2002-08-29 06:14:58
Subject: Re: SELECT ... WHERE ... NOT IN (SELECT ...);
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2002-08-29 05:03:05
Subject: Re: [SQL] LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group