This has been saved for the 8.4 release:


Pavel Stehule wrote:
> >I would argue that we should likewise not allow them in plpgsql's MOVE,
> >although this is more of a judgment call than is the case for FETCH.
> >I just don't think it's a good idea to provide two redundant ways to do
> >the same thing, when we might want to make one of the ways mean
> >something else later.  There's no upside and there might be a downside.
> >
> It's question. There are lot of links to FETCH in doc, and we support from 
> FETCH direction only subset. It needs at least notice in documentation. When 
> I testeid MOVE I found an form
> MOVE FORWARD 10 ... more natural than MOVE RELATIVE 10 and if we support 
> MOVE FORWARD ... then is logic support MOVE FORWARD n ,
> else FORWARD, BACKWARD are nonstandard and MOVE statement too.
> Regards
> Pavel Stehule
> _________________________________________________________________
> Citite se osamele? Poznejte nekoho vyjmecneho diky 
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

  Bruce Momjian  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
       choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not

Reply via email to