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

On Wed, 2002-08-28 at 10:11, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > Larry Rosenman wrote:
> >> 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,
>
> Yes, particularly considering that LIMIT ... FOR UPDATE corresponds
> to the implementation behavior (LIMIT acts before FOR UPDATE) while
> FOR UPDATE ... LIMIT does not.
>
> I concur with documenting only the preferred form (though there should
> be a note in gram.y explaining that we're supporting the old syntax
> for backward compatibility).
>

Doesn't the need for a note explaining that we're supporting the old
syntax say to you that the documentation also needs to say we support
the old syntax? I can see the bug reports now saying "this is clearly
not what it says in the docs"...

Robert Treat