Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Perhaps we could do something with a hybrid technique: don't materialize
> the cursor output unless user actually asks for backwards scan.
Or we can check the existence of SCROLL keyword which is
currently ignored. In the first place SQL standard only
allows NEXT fetch unless SCROLL is specified.
regards,
Hiroshi Inoue
http://w2422.nsk.ne.jp/~inoue/
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
- Re: [HACKERS] MOVE LAST: why? Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] MOVE LAST: why? Hiroshi Inoue
- Re: [HACKERS] MOVE LAST: why? Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] MOVE LAST: why? Hiroshi Inoue
- Re: [HACKERS] MOVE LAST: why? Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] MOVE LAST: why? Hiroshi Inoue
- Re: [HACKERS] MOVE LAST: why? Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] MOVE LAST: why? Hiroshi Inoue
- Re: [HACKERS] MOVE LAST: why? Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] MOVE LAST: why? Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] MOVE LAST: why? Hiroshi Inoue
- Re: [HACKERS] MOVE LAST: why? Hannu Krosing
- Re: [HACKERS] MOVE LAST: why? Hiroshi Inoue
- Re: [HACKERS] MOVE LAST: why? Hiroshi Inoue
- Re: [HACKERS] MOVE LAST: why? Bruce Momjian
- Re: [HACKERS] MOVE LAST: why? Hiroshi Inoue
- Re: [HACKERS] MOVE LAST: why? Bruce Momjian
- Re: [HACKERS] MOVE LAST: why? Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] MOVE LAST: why? Bruce Momjian
- Re: [HACKERS] MOVE LAST: why? Bruce Momjian
- Re: [HACKERS] MOVE LAST: why? Hiroshi Inoue
