Re: actualised forgotten Magnus's patch for plpgsql MOVE statement

Added to TODO for pl/pgsql:

o Review handling of MOVE and FETCH

  http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2007-04/msg00527.php


---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pavel Stehule wrote:
> 
> >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/
> 
> 
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

-- 
  Bruce Momjian          http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://postgres.enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +