Re: Modify the DECLARE CURSOR command tag depending on the scrollable flag

From: Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, 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: 2013-11-28 09:23:06
Message-ID: 52970B7A.3020703@cybertec.at
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

2013-11-28 09:55 keltezéssel, Michael Meskes írta:
> On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 09:04:17AM +0100, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote:
>>>> Well, technically, unspecified means NO SCROLL according to the SQL
>>>> standard. A lot of applications in ECPG are ported from other systems,
> That means by automatically adding a literal NO SCROLL to the command we obey
> standard, right? That's fine by me.
>
>>> behavior applies, but it might break existing apps that were unknowingly
>>> relying on a simple cursor being scrollable. OTOH any such app would be
>>> subject to breakage anyway as a result of planner changes, so it's hard to
>>> complain against this, as long as it's happening in a major version
>>> update.
> Ported applications might be in the same boat. I'm not sure if all other DBMSs
> stick with the standard if nothing is specified. So again, adding it might help
> make it clearer.
>
>> Anyway, is explicitly adding NO SCROLL the preferred solution for everyone?
> +1 from me.

Thanks, I will rework the patches this way.

>
> Michael

--
----------------------------------
Zoltán Böszörményi
Cybertec Schönig & Schönig GmbH
Gröhrmühlgasse 26
A-2700 Wiener Neustadt, Austria
Web: http://www.postgresql-support.de
http://www.postgresql.at/

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2013-11-28 10:15:22 Re: Errors on missing pg_subtrans/ files with 9.3
Previous Message Karsten Hilbert 2013-11-28 09:20:53 Re: [GENERAL] pg_upgrade ?deficiency