Re: second DML operation fails with updatable cursor

Heikki Linnakangas <heikki@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> That would solve the problem with two updates of the same row, but not this:
> UPDATE .. WHERE CURRENT OF...
> FETCH RELATIVE 0

> At the moment, that returns the next row, not the one that was updated.
> Same problem with FETCH NEXT + FETCH PRIOR after the UPDATE.

Hmm, what I'm seeing is that it returns the original (unmodified) row;
is that what you meant to say?

> What does the SQL standard have to say about this?

I think it's OK, or at worst an unimplemented feature, since our cursors
are always INSENSITIVE.
        regards, tom lane