From: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Quirk |
Date: | 2006-12-11 16:20:58 |
Message-ID: | 877iwywgid.fsf@enterprisedb.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hm, in psql if I set FETCH_COUNT to a nonzero value I suddenly find I'm unable
to use SELECT ... FOR UPDATE.
I suspect this is unnecessary, that the only reason cursors can't hold locks
is because we don't support the kind of read-write operations that clients may
expect to be able to issue against read-write cursors? But if we're using
cursors to work around the libpq interface limitations then perhaps this
restriction shouldn't apply?
postgres=# select * from test for update;
ERROR: DECLARE CURSOR ... FOR UPDATE/SHARE is not supported
DETAIL: Cursors must be READ ONLY.
--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-12-11 16:26:14 | Re: unixware and --with-ldap |
Previous Message | ohp | 2006-12-11 16:05:28 | Re: unixware and --with-ldap |