| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Rod Taylor <rbt(at)zort(dot)ca>, 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: | 2002-08-28 23:53:50 |
| Message-ID: | 22787.1030578830@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-sql |
>> If you would like a vote, we can do that, but as I remember we had the
>> same issue with COPY and we got most votes to just show the best syntax.
Perhaps we could compromise on showing only the new syntax in the <synopsis>
part of the man page, and then mentioning somewhere in the body of the
page that the other order is deprecated but accepted for backwards
compatibility. This same approach would work well for documenting
COPY's old syntax.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Matthew T. O'Connor | 2002-08-29 00:15:03 | Re: [HACKERS] fix for palloc() of user-supplied length |
| Previous Message | Robert Treat | 2002-08-28 23:27:46 | Re: [SQL] LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1? |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kemin Zhou | 2002-08-29 00:15:20 | trigger viewing |
| Previous Message | Robert Treat | 2002-08-28 23:27:46 | Re: [SQL] LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1? |