Re: [JDBC] Re: [HACKERS] Outstanding patches
> + /* I use CMD_UPDATE, because no CMD_MOVE or the like > +exists, and I would like to provide the same > +kind of info as CMD_UPDATE */ > + UpdateCommandInfo(CMD_UPDATE, 0, -1*estate->es_processed); I do not think it is a good idea to return a negative count for a backwards move; that is too likely to break client code that parses command result strings and isn't expecting minus signs. The client should know whether he issued MOVE FORWARD or MOVE BACKWARDS anyway, so just returning es_processed ought to be sufficient. Otherwise I think the patch is probably OK. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [JDBC] Re: [HACKERS] Outstanding patches
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Has the patch that makes MOVE return number of rows actually moved >> (analoguous to UPDATE and DELETE) been properly submitted to patches ? > I know MOVE had fixes in 7.1. I don't know of any outstanding MOVE > bugs. It wasn't a bug, it was a feature ;-) Bruce did not have that patch on his list of things-to-apply, so either it was never properly submitted or it slipped through the cracks. Anyone want to dig it up and verify it against 7.1? regards, tom lane ---(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
