On Wed, 2002-08-28 at 21:29, Robert Treat wrote: > > I think after the LIMIT and FOR UPDATE explanations (but before the note about > SELECT privilege) you could add a note that "for backwards compatibility > reasons the LIMIT and FOR UPDATE clauses are interchangeable" though maybe > interchangeable isn't the best word... How about "for backwards compatibility reasons the LIMIT and FOR UPDATE clauses can appear in either order, I.E. LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE and FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1 are equivalent".
> > > For COPY, we could just put the old syntax at the bottom of the manual > > page and mention it is depricated. > > In both cases I don't know that a detailed explination is needed, but a > mention of the different possibility and perhaps a suggestion to look at an > old version of the docs for complete details should go a long way. I suspect that Bruce's suggestion is best, modulo a spell check :-). > > Robert Treat -- Larry Rosenman http://www.lerctr.org/~ler Phone: +1 972-414-9812 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] US Mail: 1905 Steamboat Springs Drive, Garland, TX 75044-6749 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
