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

Re: Re: [HACKERS] Outstanding patches

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, PostgreSQL jdbc list <pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Re: [HACKERS] Outstanding patches
Date: 2001-05-10 20:52:49
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-jdbc
> +			/* I use CMD_UPDATE, because no CMD_MOVE or the like
> +			   exists, and I would like to provide the same
> +			   kind of info as CMD_UPDATE */
> +			UpdateCommandInfo(CMD_UPDATE, 0, -1*estate->es_processed);

I do not think it is a good idea to return a negative count for a
backwards move; that is too likely to break client code that parses
command result strings and isn't expecting minus signs.  The client
should know whether he issued MOVE FORWARD or MOVE BACKWARDS anyway,
so just returning es_processed ought to be sufficient.

Otherwise I think the patch is probably OK.

			regards, tom lane

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Jon LaphamDate: 2001-05-10 20:53:19
Subject: Problem with a rule on upgrade to v7.1.1
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2001-05-10 20:29:18
Subject: Re: 7.2 items

pgsql-jdbc by date

Next:From: Mihai GheorghiuDate: 2001-05-10 21:05:38
Subject: Driver
Previous:From: Hannu KrosingDate: 2001-05-10 16:14:03
Subject: Re: Re: [HACKERS] Outstanding patches

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group