| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | pgsql-committers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pgsql/src/backend/nodes (copyfuncs.c outfuncs.c print.c) |
| Date: | 2000-10-27 03:36:19 |
| Message-ID: | 27892.972617779@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> How would be the behavior of the following command sequence ?
> begin;
> declare myc cursor for select * from t1 limit 1;
> fetch in myc;
> fetch in myc;
> Could the last fetch return a row ?
As the code now stands, the second fetch would return nothing.
I think this is clearly what any reasonable person would expect
given the LIMIT 1 clause.
LIMIT ALL is a different story, because there's no semantic difference
between writing LIMIT ALL and writing no limit clause at all. We have
the option to create a distinction for planning purposes, however.
Question is do we need one?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 2000-10-27 03:59:02 | Re: pgsql/src/backend/nodes (copyfuncs.c outfuncs.c print.c) |
| Previous Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 2000-10-27 03:32:51 | Re: pgsql/src/backend/nodes (copyfuncs.c outfuncs.c print.c) |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Lamar Owen | 2000-10-27 03:48:56 | Re: [GENERAL] 7.0 vs. 7.1 (was: latest version?) |
| Previous Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 2000-10-27 03:32:51 | Re: pgsql/src/backend/nodes (copyfuncs.c outfuncs.c print.c) |