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

On Wed, 2002-08-28 at 08:52, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Larry Rosenman wrote:
> > On Tue, 2002-08-27 at 23:29, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > > > OK, patch attached. It was actually easier than I thought. We have to
> > > > decide if we are going to remove the old syntax in 7.4.
> > >
> > > I'd say "no". There's no compelling reason to break backward
> > > compatibility here --- certainly a couple more productions in gram.y
> > > isn't enough reason.
> > I agree here. Why intentionally break something that doesn't violate
> > standards, and would cause people to have to look at all their queries.
> > I personally hope y'all do *NOT* remove the old syntax.
> > >
> > > But I think it'd be sufficient to document only the new syntax.
>
> > 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, it
> doesn't promote one over the other, and if we decide to get rid of the
> old syntax someday, we can't do it.
Why the h*ll are you insistent on REMOVING the old syntax?

I see no good reason to remove it, and per TGL, the addition of the
couple(few?) rules in the grammar is negligible.

I sort of understand not documenting it, but please **DO NOT** remove
the old syntax without a damn good reason.

--
Larry Rosenman http://www.lerctr.org/~ler
Phone: +1 972-414-9812 E-Mail: ler(at)lerctr(dot)org
US Mail: 1905 Steamboat Springs Drive, Garland, TX 75044-6749