Re: Cursors and Transactions, why?

On Apr 5, 2004, at 6:44 PM, Joe Conway wrote:

> Eric Ridge wrote:
>> Why must a cursor be defined in an open transaction?  Obviously
>> there's a good reason, but I can't figure it out.  On a high level,
>> what would be involved in allowing a cursor to outlive the
>> transaction that created it?
>
> Historically I think it was because the memory was released at the end
> of the current transaction (i.e. allocations were made in
> TopTransactionContext). But as of 7.4, cursors *can* outlive
> transactions:
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/interactive/sql-declare.html
>
> WITH HOLD
> WITHOUT HOLD

holy cow!  This is fantastic.  I had no idea.  <short pause>  ooh, and
I see FETCH, in 7.4, supports absolute positioning.  Must upgrade.

thanks!

eric