From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Rod Taylor <rbt(at)rbt(dot)ca> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Cursors and backwards scans and SCROLL |
Date: | 2003-03-09 21:18:10 |
Message-ID: | 25932.1047244690@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-sql |
Rod Taylor <rbt(at)rbt(dot)ca> writes:
> Enforcing spec seems like the least confusing mode to operate under,
> especially given it could break simply by changing the plan -- which
> happens automagically (seemingly random).
Keep in mind though that complaints about the current bugs have been
fairly infrequent, which means that most people either don't try to
fetch backwards from a cursor, or don't try to do so on complex plans.
I'm hesitant to penalize a larger group for the benefit of a smaller
one --- which is why enforcing the spec strictly doesn't really appeal
to me, even though one could argue that the larger group had it coming.
I'd prefer to be permissive about the cases that we can support at no
cost, which not-by-coincidence are the cases that have worked correctly
up to now.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Neil Conway | 2003-03-09 21:20:05 | Re: Cursors and backwards scans and SCROLL |
Previous Message | Rod Taylor | 2003-03-09 21:04:28 | Re: Cursors and backwards scans and SCROLL |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Neil Conway | 2003-03-09 21:20:05 | Re: Cursors and backwards scans and SCROLL |
Previous Message | Rod Taylor | 2003-03-09 21:04:28 | Re: Cursors and backwards scans and SCROLL |