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

Robert Treat wrote:
> 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"...

Well, people would be using the docs only to learn the suggested syntax,
not every syntax. COPY supports the old syntax, but has a new one for
7.3.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073