On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
> Rod Taylor <pg@rbt.ca> writes:
> > On Thu, 2003-12-18 at 10:20, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Is there any good reason for this restriction?
>
> > The help implies you can.
>
> > DECLARE name [ BINARY ] [ INSENSITIVE ] [ [ NO ] SCROLL ]
> > CURSOR [ { WITH | WITHOUT } HOLD ] FOR query
> > [ FOR { READ ONLY | UPDATE [ OF column [, ...] ] } ]
>
> Hmm. Actually that is describing the SQL spec's syntax for DECLARE
> CURSOR, in which you can name specific *columns* not tables as being
> updatable through the cursor. Now that I think about it, the error
> check is probably there to catch anyone who writes "FOR UPDATE OF
> column" expecting to get the SQL spec behavior.
>
> I'm not sure whether anyone is planning to try to converge our notion of
> FOR UPDATE with the spec's. If that is going to happen someday, it'd
> probably be best not to introduce directly conflicting behavior into
> DECLARE CURSOR. Oh well...
I was going to look at it for 7.5. However, we don't have column locks
:-(.
Thanks,
Gavin