Re: Fix for FETCH FIRST syntax problems

From: Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Fix for FETCH FIRST syntax problems
Date: 2018-05-20 00:39:27
Message-ID: 87y3gf2mep.fsf@news-spur.riddles.org.uk
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:

>> I'm +1 for backpatching it. It may be operating as designed by
>> PeterE ten years ago, but it's not operating as designed by the SQL
>> standard.

Tom> By that argument, *anyplace* where we're missing a SQL-spec
Tom> feature is a back-patchable bug. I don't buy it.

But this is a feature we already claimed to actually support (it's
listed in sql_features with a bunch of unqualified YES entries), but in
fact doesn't work properly.

--
Andrew (irc:RhodiumToad)

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Charles Cui 2018-05-20 02:16:41 Re: [GSoC] Question about returning bytea array
Previous Message Andrew Gierth 2018-05-20 00:36:10 Re: Fix for FETCH FIRST syntax problems