Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> Why don't you like (1)? It seems fine to me, and I don't see how we are
> magically going to do any better in the future.
The restrictions of (1) seem pretty obvious to me ... but I don't
see any prospect of doing better in the near future, either.
Cross-transaction cursors are a *hard* problem for us.
The question here is do we want to offer a half-baked solution,
recognizing that it's some improvement over no solution at all?
Or do we feel it doesn't meet our standards?
I could be talked into seeing it either way ...
regards, tom lane