X-Original-To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Received: from jester.inquent.com (CPE00508b028d7d-CM00803785c5e0.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com [24.103.51.175]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44A24474E42; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 16:03:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jester.inquent.com (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h29L4S2L096194; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 16:04:35 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from rbt@rbt.ca) Subject: Re: Cursors and backwards scans and SCROLL From: Rod Taylor To: Tom Lane Cc: PostgreSQL Development , pgsql-sql@postgresql.org In-Reply-To: <21621.1047242111@sss.pgh.pa.us> References: <21621.1047242111@sss.pgh.pa.us> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-4lHoKUb3VExPrE3jiaV/" Organization: Message-Id: <1047243868.28251.217.camel@jester> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 Date: 09 Mar 2003 16:04:28 -0500 X-Archive-Number: 200303/321 X-Sequence-Number: 36567 --=-4lHoKUb3VExPrE3jiaV/ Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > I'm presently leaning to #2, even though it exposes implementation > details. I'm open to discussion though. Any preferences? Other ideas? How about a variable that turns on or off spec enforcement (case #1 or #2). On for 7.4, off for 7.5 the next release, and make it disappear after that. Enforcing spec seems like the least confusing mode to operate under, especially given it could break simply by changing the plan -- which happens automagically (seemingly random). --=20 Rod Taylor PGP Key: http://www.rbt.ca/rbtpub.asc --=-4lHoKUb3VExPrE3jiaV/ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQA+a6xc6DETLow6vwwRAgytAJ99n87nwriOBlB/sCxxFbgmohBOegCeJU8E FVH6GrBcY336KOcF9OddPeQ= =t2fU -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-4lHoKUb3VExPrE3jiaV/--