| 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: | Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>, magnus(dot)enbom(at)rockstorm(dot)se, pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1? |
| Date: | 2002-08-26 19:01:37 |
| Message-ID: | 1823.1030388497@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-sql |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> I think FOR UPDATE looks more correct at the end because it
> controls the visibility of the returned result, while LIMIT and the
> other previous clauses control the result. FOR UPDATE clearly has a
> different effect than LIMIT, GROUP BY, WHERE, and the other previous
> clauses, so it makes more sense to me to have it at the end.
In the current implementation, FOR UPDATE acts after LIMIT does, so
putting it last would make sense --- SQL's optional clauses for SELECT
generally act left-to-right.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-08-26 19:11:04 | Re: anonymous composite types - how to pass tupdesc to the function |
| Previous Message | Lamar Owen | 2002-08-26 19:01:23 | Re: @(#)Mordred Labs advisory 0x0007: Remove DoS in PostgreSQL |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Enbom | 2002-08-26 19:50:27 | Re: LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1? |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-08-26 18:53:45 | Re: LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1? |