| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>, jutso(at)tpts5(dot)seed(dot)net(dot)tw, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Bug in move 0 |
| Date: | 2000-06-11 03:52:25 |
| Message-ID: | 8087.960695545@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> I just sent off an email stating that MOVE 0 goes to the end, and that
> the FETCH manual page says:
> Postgres does not currently support this notion; in
> fact the value zero is reserved to indicate that
> all rows should be retrieved and is equivalent to
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> specifying the ALL keyword. If the RELATIVE key-
> word has been used, the Postgres assumes that the
> user intended SQL92 behavior and returns this error
> message.
> So it seems we are OK.
We may have documented the behavior, but that doesn't make it right ;-)
If someone were to submit a patch to change MOVE 0 into a no-op
(without breaking MOVE ALL of course), I'd vote to apply it.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2000-06-11 03:56:59 | Re: Bug in move 0 |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2000-06-11 03:48:27 | Re: Bug in move 0 |