From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: MOVE LAST: why? |
Date: | 2003-01-08 05:06:15 |
Message-ID: | 1082.1042002375@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-interfaces |
Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> FETCH LAST should return the last one row.
That's not clear to me. Generally, I would think the cursor should
remain positioned on whatever row is returned, but the spec clearly says
that the final cursor position after FETCH LAST is *after* the last row.
Nor do I see where exactly it says that the last row is the one to
return in this case; the spec seems to treat LAST the same as PRIOR, so
that the *first* row encountered in the movement direction might be the
one to return. Can you disentangle the spec wording for me?
> FETCH RELATIVE m should return a row after skipping
> m rows if we follow the SQL standard and so the current
> implementation of FETCH RELATIVE is broken.
No objection to that here. Are you volunteering to make it do that?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2003-01-08 05:31:01 | Re: redo error? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-01-08 04:58:44 | Re: redo error? |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Gerhard Hintermayer | 2003-01-08 06:39:05 | Re: still memory leaks with libpgtcl |
Previous Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 2003-01-08 04:58:30 | Re: MOVE LAST: why? |