| 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 04:58:30 |
| Message-ID: | 3E1BAFF6.B0114A67@tpf.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-interfaces |
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Sure. FETCH n in Postgres has always corresponded to FETCH RELATIVE n.
>
> > IIRC in SQL standard FETCH retrieves rows one by one.
>
> Yes, Postgres' idea of FETCH is only weakly related to the spec's idea.
> But I believe you get similar results if you consider only the row last
> returned by our FETCH.
FETCH n is a PostgreSQL's extention to retrieve multiple
rows by one FETCH not related to FETCH RELATIVE at all.
FETCH LAST should return the last one row.
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.
regards,
Hiroshi Inoue
http://w2422.nsk.ne.jp/~inoue/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-01-08 04:58:44 | Re: redo error? |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-01-08 04:39:27 | Re: MOVE LAST: why? |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-01-08 05:06:15 | Re: MOVE LAST: why? |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-01-08 04:39:27 | Re: MOVE LAST: why? |