Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I suspect this is unnecessary, that the only reason cursors can't hold locks
> is because we don't support the kind of read-write operations that clients may
> expect to be able to issue against read-write cursors?

I think the rationale is that the SQL spec defines what DECLARE CURSOR
... FOR UPDATE should mean, and it is not what it would mean in PG if
we simply removed that error check.  If we allow it with PG semantics,
we'll be creating an upward compatibility gotcha for ourselves when
we do finally get around to implementing UPDATE ... WHERE CURRENT OF.

                        regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
       subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
       message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Reply via email to