| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Michael Meskes <meskes(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Hans-Jürgen Schönig <hs(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
| Subject: | Re: Modify the DECLARE CURSOR command tag depending on the scrollable flag |
| Date: | 2013-11-29 03:56:46 |
| Message-ID: | 1385697406.14059.7.camel@vanquo.pezone.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2013-11-27 at 18:17 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Hm. So you're suggesting that ECPG fix this problem by inserting an
> explicit NO SCROLL clause into translated DECLARE CURSOR commands, if
> there's not a SCROLL clause?
I wouldn't go that far yet.
Do I understand this right that the future readahead code needs separate
behavior depending on whether a cursor is scrollable? I would think
that whatever you do with NO SCROLL cursors would also work with SCROLL
cursors, so if you don't know what the cursor is, just use the code for
NO SCROLL.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2013-11-29 04:00:35 | Re: MultiXact truncation, startup et al. |
| Previous Message | David Johnston | 2013-11-29 03:16:08 | Re: Suggestion: Issue warning when calling SET TRANSACTION outside transaction block |