| From: | "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | <magnus(dot)enbom(at)rockstorm(dot)se>, "Jan Wieck" <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>, <pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1? |
| Date: | 2002-08-28 01:45:55 |
| Message-ID: | GNELIHDDFBOCMGBFGEFOMEOMCDAA.chriskl@familyhealth.com.au |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-sql |
> OK, no one has commented on this, so I guess I am going to have to guess
> the group's preference.
>
> My guess, seeing as very few probably use LIMIT and FOR UPDATE together,
> is to swap them and document it in the release notes. Was I correct in
> my guess?
I'm sure very few people do it - but are you sure you can't just allow both
syntaxes?
Chris
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gavin Sherry | 2002-08-28 01:59:40 | Re: Proposed GUC Variable |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-08-28 01:08:01 | Re: Open 7.3 items |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-08-28 02:45:24 | Re: [SQL] LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1? |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-08-27 23:18:25 | Re: LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1? |