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

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.
        regards, tom lane