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

Re: Bug #866 related problem (ATTN Tom Lane)

From: Florian Wunderlich <fwunderlich(at)devbrain(dot)de>
To: pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Bug #866 related problem (ATTN Tom Lane)
Date: 2003-02-11 08:39:36
Message-ID: 3E48B6C8.A36E5A92@hq.factor3.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugspgsql-docs
I can't get through to you because your spam filter blocks my SMTP
relay.

Tom Lane wrote:
> 
> > I now have a quite similar problem: while a CURSOR on a SELECT for a
> > normal query works now, I encounter the same behavior for aggregate
> > queries:
> 
> As I think I pointed out in the original discussion, backwards fetch
> doesn't work for most plan types more complex than a simple sequential
> or index scan.  This is not trivial to fix.
> 
>                         regards, tom lane

I've looked trough our exchange on the list, but there's nothing about
that.

I found another posting which I guess you mean
(http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-novice/2002-12/msg00222.php).

I have put a comment in the interactive documentation for now, quoting
your original mail. This really should be in the distributed
documentation for FETCH.

So can I be sure that every non-aggregate SELECT on tables joined with
unique indexes works, independent of the WHERE or ORDER BY?

Is anybody working on implementing this functionality?

Thanks,
Florian Wunderlich

Responses

pgsql-docs by date

Next:From: Vicki BrownDate: 2003-02-12 04:01:21
Subject: discrepancy between "make check" output and documentation
Previous:From: EduardoDate: 2003-02-10 23:53:13
Subject: PL/PGSQL TUTORIAL

pgsql-bugs by date

Next:From: Alexander StanierDate: 2003-02-11 13:08:09
Subject: Referential Integrity
Previous:From: Elias AthanasopoulosDate: 2003-02-10 22:13:44
Subject: Re: cvs (7/2/2003) broken?

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