From: | Michael Meskes <meskes(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Michael Meskes <michael(at)fam-meskes(dot)de>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, hs(at)cybertec(dot)at |
Subject: | Re: Split-up ECPG patches |
Date: | 2009-08-09 17:03:24 |
Message-ID: | 20090809170324.GA20702@feivel.credativ.lan |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Aug 08, 2009 at 04:57:57PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> The fundamental reason that there's a problem here is that ecpg has
> decided to accept a syntax that the backend doesn't (ie, FETCH with a
> fetch direction but no FROM/IN). I think that that's basically a bad
Which was added because most if not all other precompilers allow this syntax
and of course it didn't do any harm until now.
> idea: it's not helpful to users to be inconsistent, and it requires ugly
> hacks in ecpg, and now ugly hacks in the core grammar as well. We
> should resolve it either by taking out that syntax from ecpg, or by
> making the backend accept it too. Not by uglifying the grammars some
> more in order to keep them inconsistent.
Couldn't agree more.
I'd like to figure out exactly what syntax other DBMSes accept. It appears
Informix allows the cursor name as a variable but has neither FORWARD/BACKWARD
nor FROM/IN. Zoltan, could you please check whether my docs are right?
A quick google search seems to suggest that the same holds for Oracle that
apparently allows less options.
Michael
--
Michael Meskes
Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De, Michael at Meskes dot (De|Com|Net|Org)
Michael at BorussiaFan dot De, Meskes at (Debian|Postgresql) dot Org
ICQ: 179140304, AIM/Yahoo/Skype: michaelmeskes, Jabber: meskes(at)jabber(dot)org
Go VfL Borussia! Go SF 49ers! Use Debian GNU/Linux! Use PostgreSQL!
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Meskes | 2009-08-09 17:04:40 | Re: Split-up ECPG patches |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-08-09 17:00:07 | Re: mixed, named notation support |