Re: move 0 behaviour

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Dave Cramer <dave(at)fastcrypt(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: move 0 behaviour
Date: 2002-11-02 05:41:28
Message-ID: 200211020541.gA25fS329715@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers pgsql-jdbc

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Do not hack up PerformPortalFetch; put the special case for INT_MAX in
> >> utility.c's FetchStmt code, instead. As-is, you probably broke other
> >> callers of PerformPortalFetch.
>
> > I thought about that, but I need to fail if the cursor name is invalid.
>
> What has that got to do with it?

If I put the 'return' for 0 MOVE/FETCH in utility.c's FetchStmt code, I
will not get the checks for invalid cursor names, and I will not get the
proper return tag. I don't see how to do anything in utility.c. I
assume this is the code you want to move to utility.c:

+ /* If zero count, we are done */
+ if (count == 0)
+ return;
+
+ /* Internally, zero count processes all portal rows */
+ if (count == INT_MAX)
+ count = 0;
+

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2002-11-02 05:47:57 Re: [GENERAL] What user to defaults execute as?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2002-11-02 04:49:32 Re: move 0 behaviour

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2002-11-02 05:42:03 Re: 7.2.3 vacuum bug
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2002-11-02 05:38:27 Re: CONVERT function is seriously broken

Browse pgsql-jdbc by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2002-11-02 15:06:35 Re: move 0 behaviour
Previous Message Tom Lane 2002-11-02 04:49:32 Re: move 0 behaviour