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

Re: actualised forgotten Magnus's patch for plpgsql MOVE statement

From: "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)hotmail(dot)com>
To: tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us, neilc(at)samurai(dot)com
Cc: pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org, bruce(at)momjian(dot)us, magnus(at)hagander(dot)net
Subject: Re: actualised forgotten Magnus's patch for plpgsql MOVE statement
Date: 2007-04-29 05:40:35
Message-ID: BAY114-F379239811AE131D4B5285F94D0@phx.gbl (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches
>I would argue that we should likewise not allow them in plpgsql's MOVE,
>although this is more of a judgment call than is the case for FETCH.
>I just don't think it's a good idea to provide two redundant ways to do
>the same thing, when we might want to make one of the ways mean
>something else later.  There's no upside and there might be a downside.
>

It's question. There are lot of links to FETCH in doc, and we support from 
FETCH direction only subset. It needs at least notice in documentation. When 
I testeid MOVE I found an form
MOVE FORWARD 10 ... more natural than MOVE RELATIVE 10 and if we support 
MOVE FORWARD ... then is logic support MOVE FORWARD n ,

else FORWARD, BACKWARD are nonstandard and MOVE statement too.

Regards
Pavel Stehule

_________________________________________________________________
Citite se osamele? Poznejte nekoho vyjmecneho diky Match.com. 
http://www.msn.cz/


In response to

Responses

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Greg SmithDate: 2007-04-30 02:07:54
Subject: Re: too much WAL volume
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2007-04-29 03:37:41
Subject: Re: actualised forgotten Magnus's patch for plpgsql MOVE statement

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