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 |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
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/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Smith | 2007-04-30 02:07:54 | Re: too much WAL volume |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-04-29 03:37:41 | Re: actualised forgotten Magnus's patch for plpgsql MOVE statement |