"Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Mike Aubury <mike(dot)aubury(at)aubit(dot)com> writes:
>> ie - under postgresql it appears we've scrolled *past* the last row and need
>> an additional fetch to get back to our last row..
> Why do you find that surprising? It seems to me to be symmetrical with
> the case at the beginning of the table --- the cursor is initially
> positioned before the first row. Why shouldn't there be a corresponding
> state where it's positioned after the last row?
What's implied by that but perhaps not clear is that it's easier to think of
cursors as being *between* rows rather than *on* rows. I'm not sure the
standard entirely adopts that model however.
Ask me about EnterpriseDB's PostGIS support!
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2008-04-01 20:37:00|
|Subject: Lots and lots of strdup's (bug #4079)|
|Previous:||From: Gregory Stark||Date: 2008-04-01 19:18:18|
|Subject: Re: ANALYZE getting dead tuple count hopelessly wrong|