From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: cursor sensitivity misunderstanding |
Date: | 2021-03-11 22:02:34 |
Message-ID: | ff065ebf-b345-55e5-937d-a58396fc3ee4@enterprisedb.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 09.03.21 00:22, David G. Johnston wrote:
> I came up with the attached patch to sort this out a bit. It does not
> change any cursor behavior. But the documentation now uses the terms
> more correctly and explains the differences between SQL and the
> PostgreSQL implementation better, I think.
>
>
> thanks!, though this seems like the wrong approach. Simply noting that
> our cursor is not standard compliant (or at least we don't implement a
> standard-compliant sensitive cursor) should suffice.
Well, we could just say, our behavior wrong/different. But I think it's
actually right, we were just looking at an incorrect premise and making
additional claims about it that are not accurate.
> I don't really get
> the point of adding ASENSITIVE if we don't have SENSITIVE too. I'm also
> unfamiliar with the standard default behaviors to comment on where we
> differ there - but that should be easy enough to address.
ASENSITIVE is merely a keyword to select the default behavior. Other
SQL implementations also have it, so it seems sensible to add it while
we're polishing this.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2021-03-11 22:18:16 | Re: [PATCH] Covering SPGiST index |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2021-03-11 21:59:00 | Re: pg_amcheck contrib application |