Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: second DML operation fails with updatable cursor

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Dharmendra Goyal <dharmendra(dot)goyal(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: second DML operation fails with updatable cursor
Date: 2007-10-24 15:45:04
Message-ID: 3656.1193240704@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> That would solve the problem with two updates of the same row, but not this:
> UPDATE .. WHERE CURRENT OF...
> FETCH RELATIVE 0

> At the moment, that returns the next row, not the one that was updated.
> Same problem with FETCH NEXT + FETCH PRIOR after the UPDATE.

Hmm, what I'm seeing is that it returns the original (unmodified) row;
is that what you meant to say?

> What does the SQL standard have to say about this?

I think it's OK, or at worst an unimplemented feature, since our cursors
are always INSENSITIVE.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2007-10-24 15:48:07
Subject: Re: second DML operation fails with updatable cursor
Previous:From: Heikki LinnakangasDate: 2007-10-24 14:50:27
Subject: Re: second DML operation fails with updatable cursor

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group