Re: Scroll cursor oddity...

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!

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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