>>>>> "BM" == Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
BM> OK, no one has commented on this, so I guess I am going to have to guess
BM> the group's preference.
BM> My guess, seeing as very few probably use LIMIT and FOR UPDATE together,
BM> is to swap them and document it in the release notes. Was I correct in
BM> my guess?
My preference is to allow both orders for one release, then only allow
the "correct" order in the next. be sure to absolutely make this a
big red notice in the changelog.
I just scanned my main app and found two instances where I use FOR
UPDATE LIMIT 1. These are trivial to change, but difficult to do at
the same moment I update the db server. One of these I probably don't
even need the LIMIT...
Vivek Khera, Ph.D. Khera Communications, Inc.
Internet: khera(at)kciLink(dot)com Rockville, MD +1-240-453-8497
AIM: vivekkhera Y!: vivek_khera http://www.khera.org/~vivek/
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: D'Arcy J.M. Cain||Date: 2002-08-28 16:48:19|
|Subject: Re: MemoryContextAlloc: invalid request size 1934906735|
|Previous:||From: Gavin Sherry||Date: 2002-08-28 14:57:01|
|Subject: Re: tell Bugtraq about 7.2.2|
pgsql-sql by date
|Next:||From: Kevin Brannen||Date: 2002-08-28 16:09:27|
|Subject: Re: [SQL] Retrieving the new "nextval" for primary keys....|
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2002-08-28 15:09:42|
|Subject: Re: SERIAL parameters|