From: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Mike Aubury" <mike(dot)aubury(at)aubit(dot)com>, "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Scroll cursor oddity... |
Date: | 2008-04-01 19:20:51 |
Message-ID: | 87hcel5qlo.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Mike Aubury <mike(dot)aubury(at)aubit(dot)com> writes:
>> ie - under postgresql it appears we've scrolled *past* the last row and need
>> an additional fetch to get back to our last row..
>
> Why do you find that surprising? It seems to me to be symmetrical with
> the case at the beginning of the table --- the cursor is initially
> positioned before the first row. Why shouldn't there be a corresponding
> state where it's positioned after the last row?
What's implied by that but perhaps not clear is that it's easier to think of
cursors as being *between* rows rather than *on* rows. I'm not sure the
standard entirely adopts that model however.
--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Ask me about EnterpriseDB's PostGIS support!
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-04-01 20:37:00 | Lots and lots of strdup's (bug #4079) |
Previous Message | Gregory Stark | 2008-04-01 19:18:18 | Re: ANALYZE getting dead tuple count hopelessly wrong |