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

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: Rod Taylor <rbt(at)zort(dot)ca>, 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 05:34:01
Message-ID: 21386.1030599241@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:
> Rod Taylor wrote:
>> The above, or something along those lines, would show order
>> independence.

> It is this kind of added abstraction that I definitely want to avoid.

I agree. We want to promote the LIMIT/FOR UPDATE ordering, not treat
them on an even footing. I think it's quite reasonable to show only
the preferred ordering in the synopsis, and mention the other somewhere
in the body of the man page.

BTW, I'd like to see the old COPY syntax still documented, but in the
same way --- it need not be in the synopsis, just somewhere where people
can see it without having to refer back to old manuals.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joe Conway 2002-08-29 06:53:55 SRF memory mgmt patch (was [HACKERS] Concern about memory management with SRFs)
Previous Message Neil Conway 2002-08-29 05:27:41 tweaking MemSet() performance

Browse pgsql-sql by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Yon Den Baguse Ngarso 2002-08-29 06:14:58 Re: SELECT ... WHERE ... NOT IN (SELECT ...);
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2002-08-29 05:03:05 Re: [SQL] LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1?