Robert Treat wrote: > On Wed, 2002-08-28 at 10:11, 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). > > > > Doesn't the need for a note explaining that we're supporting the old > syntax say to you that the documentation also needs to say we support > the old syntax? I can see the bug reports now saying "this is clearly > not what it says in the docs"...
Well, people would be using the docs only to learn the suggested syntax, not every syntax. COPY supports the old syntax, but has a new one for 7.3. -- 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 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
