Re: MOVE strangeness

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > Sorry, I am not understanding.  If he does:
> > ...
> > here, isn't he sitting at the start of the fourth row, no?
> 
> No.  He is sitting *on* the third row.  If he now does FETCH 1, he will
> advance to and return the fourth row; on the other hand, if he does
> FETCH -1, he will back up to and return the second row.

OK, and it makes sense FETCH -1 will move back a row rather than
re-reading the row.

> The cursor must be considered to be positioned on its current row, not
> between rows, or the SQL-defined operations UPDATE WHERE CURRENT OF and
> DELETE WHERE CURRENT OF don't make any sense.  (We don't support those
> yet, but we should someday.)

Yes, that's where the positioning makes sense.

> BTW, looking at Date and the SQL spec, I now realize that the recently
> made change to convert FETCH 0 into a no-op is wrong; per spec, FETCH
> RELATIVE 0 means "re-fetch the current row, if any".  By analogy, MOVE 0
> should probably return "MOVE 1" if you are on a real row, "MOVE 0" if
> you are not, corresponding to the number of rows you'd have gotten from
> FETCH 0.  Ugly, but ...

OK, I will fix those.  I am working on it now.  I think I am going to
have to break the internal representation that a zero fetch means fetch
all.  Right now, we use INT_MAX for fetch all in PerformPortalFetch.

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610)
359-1001+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073