| From: | Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Fix for FETCH FIRST syntax problems |
| Date: | 2018-05-20 00:39:27 |
| Message-ID: | 87y3gf2mep.fsf@news-spur.riddles.org.uk |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)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.
--
Andrew (irc:RhodiumToad)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Charles Cui | 2018-05-20 02:16:41 | Re: [GSoC] Question about returning bytea array |
| Previous Message | Andrew Gierth | 2018-05-20 00:36:10 | Re: Fix for FETCH FIRST syntax problems |