On Fri, 2003-03-21 at 17:38, Tom Lane wrote:
> AFAICS, our CVS-tip behavior is a reasonable superset of the spec.
> We don't have the "NO SCROLL" noiseword (which was not in SQL92 anyway),
> but otherwise I'm happy with what's there now.
Yeah, I guess there's no need to actual enforce NO SCROLL -- but IMHO,
it makes the most sense to do so. If the user explicitly says that the
cursor can't be used for scrolling, allowing scrolling only serves to
make things more confusing, IMHO.
In other words, who is *actually* going to specify NO SCROLL, and then
expect to scroll the cursor? I'd say just about no one, intentionally --
so if that situation occurs, it is probably the result of programmer
error, and we should flag it for standards compliance.
Cheers,
Neil
