>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.
Citite se osamele? Poznejte nekoho vyjmecneho diky Match.com.
In response to
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Greg Smith||Date: 2007-04-30 02:07:54|
|Subject: Re: too much WAL volume|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2007-04-29 03:37:41|
|Subject: Re: actualised forgotten Magnus's patch for plpgsql MOVE statement |