Re: more improvements to release notes - Mailing list pgsql-patches

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: more improvements to release notes
Date
Msg-id 200310221723.h9MHN2D21680@candle.pha.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to more improvements to release notes  (Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com>)
List pgsql-patches
Neil Conway wrote:
> This patch makes a bunch of improvements to the release notes. I only
> modified release.sgml -- HISTORY will need to be regenerated.
>
> I was able to remove almost all of the "Other uncategorized" release
> note entries, but left a few that I wasn't sure what to do with. We
> should remove this section, and move the remaining entries to other
> sections if necessary.
>
> I had a few questions on some of the entries:
>
> What is the following release note entry supposed to mean? "FETCH 0"
> doesn't "do nothing", it now fetches the current cursor row. Bruce,
> could you clarify this please?
>
>      * MOVE/FETCH 0 now does nothing; return value of MOVE/FETCH 1/0
>        varies based on the current offset in the cursor

We had MOVE/FETCH 0 handling that didn't match the SQL spec.  MOVE 0 used
to go to the end of the cursor, and FETCH 0 would return the entire
cursor.  We were basically using 0 to mean ALL, which was clearly wrong.


> This entry is plainly wrong:
>
>      * Cause FETCH 1 to return the current cursor row, or zero if at
>        beginning/end of cursor, per SQL spec (Bruce)

This should read, I think:

>      * Cause FETCH 1 to return the current cursor row number, or zero if at
                                                        ------
>        beginning/end of cursor, per SQL spec (Bruce)

>
> FETCH 0 is what actually returns the current cursor row, and returning
> "zero" when a row value is expected wouldn't make much sense. I've
> changed it to just say:
>
>      * Cause FETCH 0 to return the current cursor row, per SQL spec
> (Bruce)
>
> If I've missed some of the intent of the original entry, let me know.

I have adjusted this in your patch, but we can continue to work on it.

> These two entries are duplicates, right?
>
>      * Have SHOW DATESTYLE generate output similar to that used by SET
>        DATESTYLE (Tom)
>      * Change DATESTYLE to output its value in a more common format
> (Tom)

Yes, I think so.

> I wasn't sure, so I didn't make this change in the patch.

I removed the duplicate.


Patch applied with minor FETCH adjustment.  We will have to revisit
this.

--
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

pgsql-patches by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Ant version detection
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: more improvements to release notes