From: | Vivek Khera <khera(at)kcilink(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us (Bruce Momjian) |
Subject: | Re: LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1? |
Date: | 2002-08-28 15:28:21 |
Message-ID: | x7n0r7huju.fsf@onceler.kciLink.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-sql |
>>>>> "BM" == Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
BM> OK, no one has commented on this, so I guess I am going to have to guess
BM> the group's preference.
BM> My guess, seeing as very few probably use LIMIT and FOR UPDATE together,
BM> is to swap them and document it in the release notes. Was I correct in
BM> my guess?
My preference is to allow both orders for one release, then only allow
the "correct" order in the next. be sure to absolutely make this a
big red notice in the changelog.
I just scanned my main app and found two instances where I use FOR
UPDATE LIMIT 1. These are trivial to change, but difficult to do at
the same moment I update the db server. One of these I probably don't
even need the LIMIT...
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vivek Khera, Ph.D. Khera Communications, Inc.
Internet: khera(at)kciLink(dot)com Rockville, MD +1-240-453-8497
AIM: vivekkhera Y!: vivek_khera http://www.khera.org/~vivek/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | D'Arcy J.M. Cain | 2002-08-28 16:48:19 | Re: MemoryContextAlloc: invalid request size 1934906735 |
Previous Message | Gavin Sherry | 2002-08-28 14:57:01 | Re: tell Bugtraq about 7.2.2 |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kevin Brannen | 2002-08-28 16:09:27 | Re: [SQL] Retrieving the new "nextval" for primary keys.... |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-08-28 15:09:42 | Re: SERIAL parameters |