Re: MOVE LAST: why?

From: Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
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 03:41:01
Message-ID: 3E1B9DCD.75859501@tpf.co.jp
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-interfaces

Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Refresh my memory: what is the point of inventing an additional LAST
> >> keyword, when the behavior is exactly the same as MOVE ALL ?
>
> > SQL compatibility, per Peter.
>
> Oh, I see. But then really it should be documented as a FETCH keyword,
> not only a MOVE keyword. Will fix.

IIRC *FETCH LAST* doesn't mean *FETCH ALL*.

In addition *FETCH 0* seems to be changed to mean
*FETCH RELATIVE 0* currently. Is it reasonable ?
*FETCH n* never means *FETCH RELATIVE n*.

regards,
Hiroshi Inoue
http://w2422.nsk.ne.jp/~inoue/

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2003-01-08 03:50:32 Re: MOVE LAST: why?
Previous Message Christopher Kings-Lynne 2003-01-08 02:13:57 redo error?

Browse pgsql-interfaces by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2003-01-08 03:50:32 Re: MOVE LAST: why?
Previous Message ljb 2003-01-08 03:08:11 Re: still memory leaks with libpgtcl