Re: MOVE LAST: why?

Tom Lane wrote:
>
> 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.

In SQL99 the spec you referred to seems the ii) of b) which
begins with the word *Otherwise*. I see the following before it.

a) If K is greater than 0 (zero) and not greater than N, then CR
is positioned on the K-th row of Tt and the corresponding row
of T. That row becomes the current row of CR.

Then I'm also suspicious if MOVE LAST should mean MOVE ALL.

> > 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?

I'm suspicios if we should implement scrollable cursors
with the combination of the current MOVE and FETCH implemen-
tation. For example the backwards FETCH operation for group
nodes isn't implemented properly yet(maybe). Should we fix
it or take another way ?

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