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

Pavel Stehule wrote:
>
> >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.

Do we have a patch to make this consistent?

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +