Re: [SQL] LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1?
От | Robert Treat |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [SQL] LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1030544652.3216.7.camel@camel обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [SQL] LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1? (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: [SQL] LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1?
Re: [SQL] LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1? |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2002-08-28 at 10:11, Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: > > Larry Rosenman wrote: > >> Why? If both old and new are acceptable, why not document it? > >> (Just curious, I'm not wedded to it). > > > Well, showing both versions adds confusion for no good reason, > > Yes, particularly considering that LIMIT ... FOR UPDATE corresponds > to the implementation behavior (LIMIT acts before FOR UPDATE) while > FOR UPDATE ... LIMIT does not. > > I concur with documenting only the preferred form (though there should > be a note in gram.y explaining that we're supporting the old syntax > for backward compatibility). > Doesn't the need for a note explaining that we're supporting the old syntax say to you that the documentation also needs to say we support the old syntax? I can see the bug reports now saying "this is clearly not what it says in the docs"... Robert Treat
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: