Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What's implied by that but perhaps not clear is that it's easier to think of
> cursors as being *between* rows rather than *on* rows. I'm not sure the
> standard entirely adopts that model however.
That's an interesting way of thinking about it, but I t
"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Mike Aubury <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> ie - under postgresql it appears we've scrolled *past* the last row and need
>> an additional fetch to get back to our last row..
>
> Why do you find that surprising? It seems to me to be symmetrical with
> the c
Mike Aubury <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ie - under postgresql it appears we've scrolled *past* the last row and need
> an additional fetch to get back to our last row..
Why do you find that surprising? It seems to me to be symmetrical with
the case at the beginning of the table --- the cursor
Does anyone know what the "correct" behaviour for a scroll cursor should be
when you've scrolled past the end ?
If you take this SQL for example :
create temp table sometab ( a integer);
insert into sometab values(1);
insert into sometab values(2);
insert into sometab values(3);
