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

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > Rod Taylor wrote:
> >> The above, or something along those lines, would show order
> >> independence.
> 
> > It is this kind of added abstraction that I definitely want to avoid. 
> 
> I agree.  We want to promote the LIMIT/FOR UPDATE ordering, not treat
> them on an even footing.  I think it's quite reasonable to show only
> the preferred ordering in the synopsis, and mention the other somewhere
> in the body of the man page.
> 
> BTW, I'd like to see the old COPY syntax still documented, but in the
> same way --- it need not be in the synopsis, just somewhere where people
> can see it without having to refer back to old manuals.

Both done.

--  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