Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Personally, I'm inclined to change both of these cases to result in an
> error...
No strong objection from me, but perhaps you ought to toss out a query
on pgsql-sql or pgsql-general to see if anyone wants to complain. Not
all the folks who might be upset
On Fri, 2003-03-21 at 12:12, Tom Lane wrote:
> I agree that the second of these is bogus. I'm ambivalent about
> changing the first; it's odd but perhaps there are apps out there
> that depend on it. Any other opinions out there?
For what it's worth, I noticed that the first (DECLARE CURSOR repl
Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In other words, who is *actually* going to specify NO SCROLL, and then
> expect to scroll the cursor? I'd say just about no one, intentionally --
Well, if you want to do a three-way switch as per earlier discussion,
I won't object. I can't get real excite
On Fri, 2003-03-21 at 17:38, Tom Lane wrote:
> AFAICS, our CVS-tip behavior is a reasonable superset of the spec.
> We don't have the "NO SCROLL" noiseword (which was not in SQL92 anyway),
> but otherwise I'm happy with what's there now.
Yeah, I guess there's no need to actual enforce NO SCROLL --
Greg Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Note that it won't be a noise word: if NO SCROLL is specified, an
> attempt to do a backward fetch on a non-scrollable cursor will yield an
> error.
> Does the spec *require* an error, or merely say that backward fetc
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Fri, 2003-03-21 at 12:12, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> (No problem here with adding the noise-word option, of course.)
>
> > Note that it won't be a noise word: if NO SCROLL is specified, an
> > attempt to do a backwar
Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 2003-03-21 at 12:12, Tom Lane wrote:
>> (No problem here with adding the noise-word option, of course.)
> Note that it won't be a noise word: if NO SCROLL is specified, an
> attempt to do a backward fetch on a non-scrollable cursor will yield an
>
On Fri, 2003-03-21 at 12:12, Tom Lane wrote:
> Hm? As of CVS tip, SCROLL most definitely does something.
Sorry -- I noticed that it doesn't actually effect whether you can do
backward fetches on the cursor, which is what I should have said.
> (No problem here with adding the noise-word option, o
Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The SQL spec specifies that you should be able to specify NO SCROLL to
> DECLARE CURSOR to disallow bidirectional fetching on the cursor. We
> currently support the SCROLL syntax, but it had no significant effect on
> the behavior of the cursor. This was pr
