Re: [SQL] LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1?
От | Rod Taylor |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [SQL] LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1030544932.83275.58.camel@jester обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [SQL] LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1? (Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: [SQL] LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2002-08-28 at 10:24, Robert Treat wrote: > 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"... Yes, both should be documented. But mark the non-preferred version as depreciated and disappearing soon (whether it does or not is another story) but discourage people from using it.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: