Re: more improvements to release notes

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: more improvements to release notes
Date: 2003-10-22 17:23:02
Message-ID: 200310221723.h9MHN2D21680@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches

Neil Conway wrote:
> This patch makes a bunch of improvements to the release notes. I only
> modified release.sgml -- HISTORY will need to be regenerated.
>
> I was able to remove almost all of the "Other uncategorized" release
> note entries, but left a few that I wasn't sure what to do with. We
> should remove this section, and move the remaining entries to other
> sections if necessary.
>
> I had a few questions on some of the entries:
>
> What is the following release note entry supposed to mean? "FETCH 0"
> doesn't "do nothing", it now fetches the current cursor row. Bruce,
> could you clarify this please?
>
> * MOVE/FETCH 0 now does nothing; return value of MOVE/FETCH 1/0
> varies based on the current offset in the cursor

We had MOVE/FETCH 0 handling that didn't match the SQL spec. MOVE 0 used
to go to the end of the cursor, and FETCH 0 would return the entire
cursor. We were basically using 0 to mean ALL, which was clearly wrong.

> This entry is plainly wrong:
>
> * Cause FETCH 1 to return the current cursor row, or zero if at
> beginning/end of cursor, per SQL spec (Bruce)

This should read, I think:

> * Cause FETCH 1 to return the current cursor row number, or zero if at
------
> beginning/end of cursor, per SQL spec (Bruce)

>
> FETCH 0 is what actually returns the current cursor row, and returning
> "zero" when a row value is expected wouldn't make much sense. I've
> changed it to just say:
>
> * Cause FETCH 0 to return the current cursor row, per SQL spec
> (Bruce)
>
> If I've missed some of the intent of the original entry, let me know.

I have adjusted this in your patch, but we can continue to work on it.

> These two entries are duplicates, right?
>
> * Have SHOW DATESTYLE generate output similar to that used by SET
> DATESTYLE (Tom)
> * Change DATESTYLE to output its value in a more common format
> (Tom)

Yes, I think so.

> I wasn't sure, so I didn't make this change in the patch.

I removed the duplicate.

Patch applied with minor FETCH adjustment. We will have to revisit
this.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

In response to

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2003-10-22 17:26:28 Re: more improvements to release notes
Previous Message Tom Lane 2003-10-22 16:46:33 Re: Ant version detection