> These pointers are useless
> except in the very unusual case where one steps forward and then back
> in a sequential scan (for example, "FETCH 1; FETCH BACKWARD 1;" in a
> cursor).

Actually I think it should be known whether a fetch backward is actually
allowed for a particular cursor, since it usually needs to be declared 
as a scroll cursor explicitly. 

>  It seems to me that this is wrongheaded.  We could simplify
> and speed up the normal case by maintaining only a "current" pointer,
> which would be well worth the extra work in the forward/back 
> step case.

So it probably does pay off for a cursor, that is explicitly requested 
to be scrollable, but certainly not for others, yes.

Andreas

Mon, 11 Jun 2001 09:35:14 +0200
Zeugswetter Andreas SB  <ZeugswetterA@wien.spardat.at>
AW: Various silliness in heap_getnext and related routi
	nes