Re: actualised forgotten Magnus's patch for plpgsql MOVE statement - Mailing list pgsql-patches

From Pavel Stehule
Subject Re: actualised forgotten Magnus's patch for plpgsql MOVE statement
Date
Msg-id BAY114-F379239811AE131D4B5285F94D0@phx.gbl
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: actualised forgotten Magnus's patch for plpgsql MOVE statement  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: actualised forgotten Magnus's patch for plpgsql MOVE statement  (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>)
Re: actualised forgotten Magnus's patch for plpgsql MOVE statement  (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>)
Re: actualised forgotten Magnus's patch for plpgsql MOVE statement  (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>)
List pgsql-patches
>I would argue that we should likewise not allow them in plpgsql's MOVE,
>although this is more of a judgment call than is the case for FETCH.
>I just don't think it's a good idea to provide two redundant ways to do
>the same thing, when we might want to make one of the ways mean
>something else later.  There's no upside and there might be a downside.
>

It's question. There are lot of links to FETCH in doc, and we support from
FETCH direction only subset. It needs at least notice in documentation. When
I testeid MOVE I found an form
MOVE FORWARD 10 ... more natural than MOVE RELATIVE 10 and if we support
MOVE FORWARD ... then is logic support MOVE FORWARD n ,

else FORWARD, BACKWARD are nonstandard and MOVE statement too.

Regards
Pavel Stehule

_________________________________________________________________
Citite se osamele? Poznejte nekoho vyjmecneho diky Match.com.
http://www.msn.cz/


pgsql-patches by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: actualised forgotten Magnus's patch for plpgsql MOVE statement
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Hash function for numeric (WIP)