| From: | Rod Taylor <rbt(at)zort(dot)ca> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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 02:18:07 |
| Message-ID: | 1030587488.1693.11.camel@jester |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-sql |
> Yes, I thought about that. People want to show both SELECT syntaxes,
> but how would you do that --- show the SELECT syntax twice with just
> those last two clauses reversed --- yuck.
select .... [ <stmt group>, ... ]
<stmt group> :
[ FOR UPDATE | LIMIT ]
The above, or something along those lines, would show order
independence.
> We could easily mention that we allow both clause orderings in the text
> somewhere.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Treat | 2002-08-29 02:29:14 | Re: [SQL] LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1? |
| Previous Message | Larry Rosenman | 2002-08-29 02:16:35 | Re: [SQL] LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1? |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Treat | 2002-08-29 02:29:14 | Re: [SQL] LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1? |
| Previous Message | Larry Rosenman | 2002-08-29 02:16:35 | Re: [SQL] LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1? |