Re: Cursors and Transactions, why?

Eric Ridge wrote:
> On Apr 6, 2004, at 11:54 AM, Jan Wieck wrote:
>> If the underlying query is for example a simple sequential scan, then
>> the result set is not materialized but every future fetch operation
>> will read directly from the base table. This would obviously get
>> screwed up if vacuum would think nobody needs those rows any more.
>
> Is vacuum the only thing that would muck with the rows?

Vacuum is the only thing that cares for the dustmites, yes.

> I need to setup a 7.4 test server and play with this some, and figure
> out if the benefits are really what I want them to be.  I do appreciate
> the insight into how cursors work... it helps a lot!

Experience and knowledge can only be replaced by more experience and
more knowledge.


Jan

--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me.                                  #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #