Date: Sun, 20 May 2018 21:26:50 +0200
From: David Fetter <david@fetter.org>
To: Andrew Gierth <andrew@tao11.riddles.org.uk>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Vik Fearing <vik.fearing@2ndquadrant.com>,
	pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Fix for FETCH FIRST syntax problems
Message-ID: <20180520192649.GA20752@fetter.org>
References: <877enz476l.fsf@news-spur.riddles.org.uk>
 <22981.1526770675@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <03da97fc-9d6b-cbe1-c28f-cee7c1ba5c38@2ndquadrant.com>
 <25267.1526773270@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <87y3gf2mep.fsf@news-spur.riddles.org.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87y3gf2mep.fsf@news-spur.riddles.org.uk>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, May 20, 2018 at 01:39:27AM +0100, Andrew Gierth wrote:
> >>>>> "Tom" == Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
> 
>  >> I'm +1 for backpatching it. It may be operating as designed by
>  >> PeterE ten years ago, but it's not operating as designed by the SQL
>  >> standard.
> 
>  Tom> By that argument, *anyplace* where we're missing a SQL-spec
>  Tom> feature is a back-patchable bug. I don't buy it.
> 
> But this is a feature we already claimed to actually support (it's
> listed in sql_features with a bunch of unqualified YES entries), but in
> fact doesn't work properly.

This looks like a bug fix to me, for what it's worth.

Best,
David.
-- 
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate