Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>> I thought about that, but I need to fail if the cursor name is invalid.
> >>
> >> What has that got to do with it?
>
> > If I put the 'return' for 0 MOVE/FETCH in
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> I thought about that, but I need to fail if the cursor name is invalid.
>>
>> What has that got to do with it?
> If I put the 'return' for 0 MOVE/FETCH in utility.c's FetchStmt code, I
>
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Do not hack up PerformPortalFetch; put the special case for INT_MAX in
> >> utility.c's FetchStmt code, instead. As-is, you probably broke other
> >> callers of PerformPortalFetch.
>
> > I thought about that, but
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The following patch makes FETCH/MOVE 0 do nothing, and FETCH LAST move
> > to the end.
>
> Do not hack up PerformPortalFetch; put the special case for INT_MAX in
> utility.c's FetchStmt code, instead. As-is, you probably broke other
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The following patch makes FETCH/MOVE 0 do nothing, and FETCH LAST move
> to the end.
Do not hack up PerformPortalFetch; put the special case for INT_MAX in
utility.c's FetchStmt code, instead. As-is, you probably broke other
callers of PerformPortalFetc
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
>
> > So, that is why MOVE 0 goes to the end of the cursor. One idea would be
> > for MOVE 0 to actually move nothing, but jdbc and others need the
> > ability to move the end of the cursor, perhaps to then back up a certain
> > amount and read from
Bruce Momjian writes:
> So, that is why MOVE 0 goes to the end of the cursor. One idea would be
> for MOVE 0 to actually move nothing, but jdbc and others need the
> ability to move the end of the cursor, perhaps to then back up a certain
> amount and read from there. Seems MOVE 0 is the logical
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I did some research on this. It turns out the parser uses 0 for ALL, so
> when you do a FETCH ALL it is passing zero. Now, when you do MOVE 0,
> you are really asking for FETCH ALL and all the tuples are thrown away
> because of the MOVE.
Yeah. I thin
Dave Cramer wrote:
> Currently there is a TODO list item to have move 0 not position to the
> end of the cursor.
>
> Moving to the end of the cursor is useful, can we keep the behaviour and
> change it to move end, or just leave it the way it is?
I did some research on this. It turns out the par
