Jan Wieck <JanWieck@Yahoo.com> writes:
> I don't object if we can be sure that it's implementing the
> syntax a final version with *real* cursor support will have.
> Can we?
I don't know, and I don't know what the decision criteria are.
I intentionally implemented the Oracle cursor syntax. PL/pgSQL is
very similar to PL/SQL, and I didn't see any reason to introduce a
spurious difference. Note in particular that simply passing
OPEN/FETCH/CLOSE through to the Postgres SQL parser does not implement
the Oracle cursor syntax, so I wouldn't have done that even if it
would have worked.
(I have a vested interest here. For various reasons, my company,
Zembu, has an interest in minimizing the strain of porting
applications from Oracle to Postgres. I assume that the Postgres team
also has that interest, within reason. But I don't know for sure.)
Ian
