Message-ID: <3E6EE98B.C9357A95@tpf.co.jp>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 17:02:19 +0900
From: Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue@tpf.co.jp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Cc: Dave Page <dpage@vale-housing.co.uk>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
	PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Roadmap for FE/BE protocol redesign
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0303120107410.1617-100000@peter.localdomain>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-2022-jp
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> 
> Dave Page writes:
> 
> > I don't know about JDBC, but ODBC could use it,
> > and it would save a heck of a lot of pain in apps
> > like pgAdmin that need to figure out if a column
> > in an arbitrary resultset might be updateable.
> 
> Strictly speaking, result sets are never updatable,
> because there's no way you can refer to a result set
> and tell the system to update it.
> So let's hear what you *really* need and then consider
> interfaces for *that*. Maybe updatable views or
> updatable cursors?

The word *result set* is used variously
and *updatable cursors* has its meaning
in some middleware applications.

The word *cursor* is used variously too.
For example, ODBC cursors don't necessarily
mean(correspond to) the dbms cursors.
If there's a suitable cursor, the ODBC driver
may conveniently use it to implement ODBC
cursors. Otherwise the ODBC driver may implement
ODBC cursors by itself. PostgreSQL has paid
attention to the cursor support little and I
don't expect much of server-side cursors.

regards,
Hiroshi Inoue
	http://www.geocities.jp/inocchichichi/psqlodbc/