From: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
Reply-To: josh@agliodbs.com
Organization: Aglio Database Solutions
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Updatable cursor doubt
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 17:37:07 -0700
User-Agent: KMail/1.8
Cc: "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki@enterprisedb.com>,
	"FAST PostgreSQL" <fastpgs@fast.fujitsu.com.au>
References: <46DCB86F.9070102@fast.fujitsu.com.au>
	<46DD226F.7060602@enterprisedb.com>
In-Reply-To: <46DD226F.7060602@enterprisedb.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200709041737.09541.josh@agliodbs.com>

Heikki,

> FOR READ ONLY is actually part of the SELECT syntax. It's been accepted
> for at least down to version 7.4, probably even longer than that, but it
> hasn't been documented. It's accepted for the sake of compatibility with
> other DBMSs (and SQL standard?), it doesn't do anything in PostgreSQL.
>
> Now, whether we should make an effort to not allow updating a cursor on
> a query with FOR READ ONLY, that's another question. I don't think it's
> worth the effort, and it wouldn't really gain us anything. We probably
> should mention it in the manual, in the Compatibility section of SELECT
> reference page.

Who are we, MySQL?   We ought not to accept the syntax if we're not going 
to enforce it.


-- 
--Josh

Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco