> These pointers are useless > except in the very unusual case where one steps forward and then back > in a sequential scan (for example, "FETCH 1; FETCH BACKWARD 1;" in a > cursor). Actually I think it should be known whether a fetch backward is actually allowed for a particular cursor, since it usually needs to be declared as a scroll cursor explicitly. > It seems to me that this is wrongheaded. We could simplify > and speed up the normal case by maintaining only a "current" pointer, > which would be well worth the extra work in the forward/back > step case. So it probably does pay off for a cursor, that is explicitly requested to be scrollable, but certainly not for others, yes. Andreas ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
