Re: [SQL] Cursors and backwards scans and SCROLL

2003-03-09 Thread Tom Lane
Rod Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Enforcing spec seems like the least confusing mode to operate under, > especially given it could break simply by changing the plan -- which > happens automagically (seemingly random). Keep in mind though that complaints about the current bugs have been fair

Re: [SQL] Cursors and backwards scans and SCROLL

2003-03-09 Thread Rod Taylor
> I'm presently leaning to #2, even though it exposes implementation > details. I'm open to discussion though. Any preferences? Other ideas? How about a variable that turns on or off spec enforcement (case #1 or #2). On for 7.4, off for 7.5 the next release, and make it disappear after that. E

Re: [SQL] Cursors and backwards scans and SCROLL

2003-03-09 Thread Josh Berkus
Tom, > Postgres' implementation of cursors has always had a problem with doing > MOVE or FETCH backwards on complex queries. Coincidnetally enough, I was just chatting with one of my contractors yesterday about how the one thing that Transact-SQL has to offer is a really good cursor implementa