| From: | Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: cursors outside transactions |
| Date: | 2003-03-18 05:30:39 |
| Message-ID: | 3E76AEFF.332979E8@tpf.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Neil Conway wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2003-03-17 at 22:52, Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> > I have never meant (1) by cursors outside transactions.
>
> I'm sorry, I don't understand.
That is I strongly object to your proposal.
If (1) is OK, I should have already implemented it.
> > BTW why are updatable and sensitive cursors easier
> > to implement using (2).
>
> (Note that I haven't looked into implementing either feature in depth.)
> My guess is that updateable cursors would be easier with an MVCC-based
> approach because the executor would still be accessing the data that is
> being returned. So subsequently updating the tuple would be easier (say,
> based on its TID),
What do you mean by MVCC ? It seems little related to MVCC.
regards,
Hiroshi Inoue
http://www.geocities.jp/inocchichichi/psqlodbc/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joe Conway | 2003-03-18 05:41:26 | Re: PQescapeBytea on Win32 |
| Previous Message | Joe Conway | 2003-03-18 05:21:11 | Re: [HACKERS] SQL99 ARRAY support proposal |