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

Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> 
> > That SELECT syntax is already too confusing.  I don't want to add an
> > additional documentation specification that provides no value to users.
> 
> The value of the documentation, especially the reference manual, is that
> it provides an authorative source of what works and what doesn't.  It is
> not the place to hide transitional phases.  Moreover, the least possible
> value you could provide to users is to gratuitously[*] change the syntax
> and not tell anyone about it.
> 
> [*] It's not like this will magically gain us MySQL or Oracle
> compatibility.
> 
> In fact, the recent trend in the SQL commands has been to accept most
> options in any order, so it would only be logical to accept the LIMIT and
> FOR UDPATE options in any order and document that fact.  There is a
> separate section in each reference page for information about which format
> is compatible with what.
> 
> But please remember that our foremost goal is to be compatible, both in
> actuality and in mindset, with PostgreSQL, not with any other product that
> happened to use a slightly different syntax at their whim.
> 
> Therefore I request that both forms be accepted and documented as equally
> valid.

You made the same argument for the COPY syntax, that we publish both the
old and new syntaxes, and I resisted because I felt most people would
rather just see the best syntax.  I don't see the documentation as
showing every possible syntax because that really doesn't benefit users,
or should I say confused more than it helps.

If you would like a vote, we can do that, but as I remember we had the
same issue with COPY and we got most votes to just show the best syntax.

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610)
359-1001+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073