Bob Rossi wrote:
On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 10:17:34AM +1000, Bojan Smojver wrote:
On Sat, 2008-05-17 at 18:29 -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
+1 and I concur with Tom's suggestion w.r.t. a preferred row offset 1.
Tom, do you want to fix this one or do you want me to do it?
Aren't you worried about how that will break all the existing programs
out there using this interface?
Bob Rossi
Yes that's a problem - but as it stands existing programs need to change code
to change databases.
I don't think this is a candidate for backporting (for the reason you state) - but it makes sense to
document a correct way, and to fix it in the next major APR release.
Otherwise, applications would either work with some dbd drivers but not with others; or else they
must support both 1-based and 0-based row numbers - which implies a code change for most existing
dbd applications (like yours...)
A Google code search turns up few applications which use random-access dbd. Not a guarantee of
course - but an indication that that this won't be disruptive to a large number of apps if we do it
soon.
Surprisingly, there is even an app (a nagios add-on) which tries to switch between 0- and 1-based
row numbering; but it does so only for Oracle vs. non-Oracle, not the general case.
-tom-
