Re: [SQL] LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Alvaro Herrera
Subject Re: [SQL] LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1?
Date
Msg-id Pine.LNX.4.44.0208271718540.5950-100000@cm-lcon1-46-187.cm.vtr.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [SQL] LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1?  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
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/)



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: [SQL] LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1?
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: LWLockAcquire problems