| From: | Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-committers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pgsql/src/backend/nodes (copyfuncs.c outfuncs.c print.c) |
| Date: | 2000-10-27 03:32:51 |
| Message-ID: | 39F8F763.1A47D9C1@tpf.co.jp |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> > For example,LIMIT ALL means LIMIT 1 for optimizer and means
> > no LIMIT for executor.
> > Comments ?
>
> I don't see the point. In the context of a regular SELECT, optimizing
> that way would be wrong, because we are going to fetch all the data.
> In the context of a DECLARE CURSOR, we already have a bias for fast-
> start plans, so why do we need another?
>
Hmm,I missed somthing ?
How would be the behavior of the following command sequence ?
begin;
declare myc cursor for select * from t1 limit 1;
fetch in myc;
fetch in myc;
Could the last fetch return a row ?
Regards, Hiroshi Inoue.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2000-10-27 03:36:19 | Re: pgsql/src/backend/nodes (copyfuncs.c outfuncs.c print.c) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2000-10-27 03:14:14 | Re: pgsql/src/backend/nodes (copyfuncs.c outfuncs.c print.c) |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2000-10-27 03:36:19 | Re: pgsql/src/backend/nodes (copyfuncs.c outfuncs.c print.c) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2000-10-27 03:14:14 | Re: pgsql/src/backend/nodes (copyfuncs.c outfuncs.c print.c) |