Neil Conway wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2003-03-17 at 22:52, Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> > I have never meant (1) by cursors outside transactions.
>
> I'm sorry, I don't understand.
That is I strongly object to your proposal.
If (1) is OK, I should have already implemented it.
> > BTW why are updatable and sensitive cursors easier
> > to implement using (2).
>
> (Note that I haven't looked into implementing either feature in depth.)
> My guess is that updateable cursors would be easier with an MVCC-based
> approach because the executor would still be accessing the data that is
> being returned. So subsequently updating the tuple would be easier (say,
> based on its TID),
What do you mean by MVCC ? It seems little related to MVCC.
regards,
Hiroshi Inouehttp://www.geocities.jp/inocchichichi/psqlodbc/