| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)atentus(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [SQL] LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1? |
| Date: | 2002-08-27 21:21:42 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.44.0208271718540.5950-100000@cm-lcon1-46-187.cm.vtr.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-sql |
Bruce Momjian dijo:
> 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?
Is it possible to support both ways for a couple of releases? Mention
the backwards one as "deprecated" in release notes, and drop it in 7.4.
--
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]atentus.com>)
"On the other flipper, one wrong move and we're Fatal Exceptions"
(T.U.X.: Term Unit X - http://www.thelinuxreview.com/TUX/)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-08-27 21:23:06 | Re: [SQL] LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1? |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-08-27 21:19:42 | Re: [HACKERS] pg_attribute.attisinherited ? |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-08-27 21:23:06 | Re: [SQL] LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1? |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-08-27 21:02:14 | Re: [SQL] LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1? |