Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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).
I originally thought the grammar would be ugly to support both, but in fact it has almost the same number of actions as before, so we can keep it around for a while if not forever. I will update the gram.y comments to indicate it will live beyond 7.3.X. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
