> [ dept of second thoughts... ] Actually, given that he said FOR UPDATE, > the plan should be propagating the tuple identity through to top level > so that execMain can do its thing. So in principle we could probably > get the information without widespread changes. This would fit > reasonably well with the spec's requirements too --- any but trivial > cursors are not deemed updatable unless you say FOR UPDATE. But it > would mean two completely independent implementations within > execCurrent.c...
What's particularly unfortunate is Greg's comment that this would work if the planner chose an index scan. Had I defined an index on the columns in question, my code might have worked and been deployed to production - and then broken if the planner changed its mind and decided to use a seqscan after all. ISTM any cursor that's going to be updated should specify WHERE UPDATE in the query, but maybe that's not a hard requirement as of now. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
