As the code stands plpgsql will try to issue something like
UPDATE/DELETE ... WHERE CURRENT OF $1
Since we don't try to do anything with the cursor name until runtime,
it seems that this would work if we allowed a parameter symbol there.
Offhand that doesn't look hard.
I tested it. I
"Pavel Stehule" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> All explicit cursors (what I know) use named SQL cursors. SQL name is
> checked in OPEN statement. Refcursors are problematic. But refcursors
> are not updatable.
Sure they are, and besides which a bound cursor can still have a name
different from the
No, the question is what is the patch trying to accomplish, because
as far as I can see it's wrong. It seems to be trying to insert the
plpgsql name of the cursor, which is not necessarily the SQL name.
All explicit cursors (what I know) use named SQL cursors. SQL name is
checked in OPEN sta
"Pavel Stehule" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 2007/6/11, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Why do we need this?
>>
> For stored procedures.
No, the question is what is the patch trying to accomplish, because
as far as I can see it's wrong. It seems to be trying to insert the
plpgsql name of the c
2007/6/11, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
"Pavel Stehule" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> this small patch allows using updatable cursors in plpgsql.
Why do we need this?
For stored procedures. Updatable cursors are used mainly in transform
procedures, and without suppport in plpgsql, you have to
"Pavel Stehule" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> this small patch allows using updatable cursors in plpgsql.
Why do we need this?
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by
