Em 06/05/2017 11:15, Vlad Khorsun escreveu:
> 06.05.2017 15:15, livius wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, but we should avoid to write whole novels at SQL statements ;)
>>
>> Agree - but to fast chice is also not good
>
>Could you offer better syntax ?
>
>>> It have no sence (if i understand you :) )
>>
Awesome! :)
On 2017.04.21. 1:30, Adriano dos Santos Fernandes wrote:
> Em 20/04/2017 17:53, Vlad Khorsun escreveu:
>> Also it is necessary
>> to teach engine to use that metadata (instead of current one) within
>> attachment
>> working "in the past".
>>
> I'm doing a prototype implementation of
Em 20/04/2017 17:53, Vlad Khorsun escreveu:
> Also it is necessary
> to teach engine to use that metadata (instead of current one) within
> attachment
> working "in the past".
>
I'm doing a prototype implementation of this for active transactions,
i.e., the things I mentioned in this thread
>This statement i not understand. Do you speak about transaction ? Or
>about
Transaction.
> statement\cursor ? If later, why do you can't remember id of last fetched
> row
> and start next fetch from this position ?
That's what we do now, in a nutshell. The problem is of course to have
