Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> >> This patch has broken half the buildfarm, and I've still not seen a
> >> rationale why we need to make such a change at all.
> 
> > Fixed with attached patch.  The use case for this was not FETCH, but
> > MOVE for > 2gig tables.
> 
> There is *no* credible use case for this (hint: MOVE FORWARD/BACKWARD
> ALL does not need this to work for >2G tables).  It is not worth the
> extra computational cycles that it imposes on every machine whether they
> use the feature or not, and it is certainly not worth the developer time
> we're expending to fix this poorly written patch.  Please revert it.

Already done because of bad coding.  You want the TODO item removed too?

-- 
  Bruce Momjian   bruce(at)momjian(dot)us
  EnterpriseDB    http://www.enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

In response to

• Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Change FETCH/MOVE to use int8. at 2006-09-03 03:22:35 from Tom Lane

Responses

• Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Change FETCH/MOVE to use int8. at 2006-09-03 04:49:41 from Tom Lane

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Bruce Momjian	Date: 2006-09-03 03:39:33
	Subject: Re: plpgsql, return can contains any expression
Previous:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2006-09-03 03:22:35
	Subject: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Change FETCH/MOVE to use int8.

pgsql-committers by date

Next:	From: Bruce Momjian	Date: 2006-09-03 03:26:42
	Subject: pgsql: Reverted: < * -Change LIMIT/OFFSET and FETCH/MOVE to use int8 >
Previous:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2006-09-03 03:22:35
	Subject: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Change FETCH/MOVE to use int8.

pgsql-patches by date

Next:	From: Bruce Momjian	Date: 2006-09-03 03:26:06
	Subject: Re: Patch for - Change FETCH/MOVE to use int8
Previous:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2006-09-03 03:22:35
	Subject: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Change FETCH/MOVE to use int8.