> > That's gonna have to be fixed.  If you're not up for it, don't implement
> > this.  Given that cursors (are supposed to) support FETCH BACKWARDS,
> > I really don't see why they shouldn't be expected to handle ReScan...
> I thought only scrollable cursors can do that. What if cursor isn't
> scrollable? Should it error during the execution?

In PostgreSQL, all cursors are scrollable. The allowed grammar keyword is
simply ignored. I am actually not sure that this is optimal, since there
are a few very effective optimizations, that you can do if you know, that 
ReScan is not needed (like e.g. not storing the result temporarily).

Andreas

Tue, 3 Jul 2001 10:36:43 +0200 
Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA@wien.spardat.at>
AW: selecting from cursor 
Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA@wien.spardat.at> writes:
> this.  Given that cursors (are supposed to) support FETCH BACKWARDS,
> I really don't see why they shouldn't be expected to handle ReScan...
>> I thought only scrollable cursors can do that. What if cursor isn't
>> scrollable? Should it error during the execution?

> In PostgreSQL, all cursors are scrollable. The allowed grammar keyword is
> simply ignored. I am actually not sure that this is optimal, since there
> are a few very effective optimizations, that you can do if you know, that 
> ReScan is not needed (like e.g. not storing the result temporarily).

It's worse than that: we don't distinguish plans for cursors from plans
for any other query, hence *all* query plans are supposed to be able to
run backwards.  (In practice, a lot of them don't work :-(.)  Someday
that needs to be improved.  It would be good if the system understood
whether a particular plan node would ever be asked to rescan itself or
run backwards, and could optimize things on that basis.

			regards, tom lane

Tue, 03 Jul 2001 10:12:53 -0400
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: AW: selecting from cursor 