Magnus Enbom wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 26, 2002 at 02:42:26PM -0400, Jan Wieck wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > >
> > > I found this email from April. It properly points out that our
> > > LIMIT/FOR UPDATE ordering doesn't match MySQL's, and MySQL's looks more
> > > correct, specifically that the FOR UPDATE is after the LIMIT. Our
> > > grammar is:
> >
> > How do you define "correct" for "non-standard" features? And why don't
> > you ask Monty first to change to our "de-facto-standard"? ;-)
>
> Already done that. ;-)
> He said he would look into it(having MySQL accept both behaviors), but if
> it would require a big change of their grammar(for a value of big), he'd rather
> not. He also pointed out(as Bruce and Tom have done) that our(PG) way is
> kind of backwards.
> If you look at Oracle, you can see that they also have it last:
>
> select :== subquery -> for_update_clause ;
>
> OTOH, Oracle doesn't have LIMIT, but that's another story...
>
Yep, we clearly have it backwards. Now, how to address it:
1) leave it unchanged
2) allow only new ordering
3) allow both orderings for one release
4) allow both ordering forever
--
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 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
