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
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs pgsql-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

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

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

Browse pgsql-docs by date

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