Re: [SQL] LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1?

On Wed, 2002-08-28 at 21:29, Robert Treat wrote:

> 
> I think after the LIMIT and FOR UPDATE explanations (but before the note about 
> SELECT privilege) you could add a note that "for backwards compatibility 
> reasons the LIMIT and FOR UPDATE clauses are interchangeable" though maybe 
> interchangeable isn't the best word... 
How about "for backwards compatibility reasons the LIMIT and FOR UPDATE
clauses can appear in either order, I.E. LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE and FOR
UPDATE LIMIT 1 are equivalent". 


> 
> > For COPY, we could just put the old syntax at the bottom of the manual
> > page and mention it is depricated.
> 
> In both cases I don't know that a detailed explination is needed, but a 
> mention of the different possibility and perhaps a suggestion to look at an 
> old version of the docs for complete details should go a long way.
I suspect that Bruce's suggestion is best, modulo a spell check :-). 
> 
> Robert Treat
-- 
Larry Rosenman                     http://www.lerctr.org/~ler
Phone: +1 972-414-9812                 E-Mail: ler@lerctr.org
US Mail: 1905 Steamboat Springs Drive, Garland, TX 75044-6749