| From: | Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: MOVE LAST: why? |
| Date: | 2003-01-12 23:38:02 |
| Message-ID: | 3E21FC5A.5FEE7FFC@tpf.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-interfaces |
Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> > > Honestly I'm not so enthusiastic about scrollable cursors.
> > > Even though PostgreSQL provides an efficient scrollable
> > > cursor, I would use it little unless it could survive
> > > across transactions.
> > >
> > > Anyway it's too bad that FETCH LAST means FETCH ALL.
> >
> > I would remove LAST, RELATIVE and SCROLL keywords
> > for cursor related operations if there's no objection.
>
> Are you suggesting removing FETCH LAST _and_ MOVE LAST?.
Yes. Should cursors be positioned on the last row
or EOF by MOVE LAST ? Anyway I see no necessity to use
the standard keyword LAST currently.
> I think MOVE LAST works well.
regards,
Hiroshi Inoue
http://w2422.nsk.ne.jp/~inoue/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-01-12 23:57:12 | Re: MOVE LAST: why? |
| Previous Message | Joe Conway | 2003-01-12 20:26:32 | targetlist functions part 1 (was [HACKERS] targetlist functions proposals) |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-01-12 23:57:12 | Re: MOVE LAST: why? |
| Previous Message | Emmanuel Charpentier | 2003-01-12 21:37:53 | Re: [GENERAL] problem with update rules on a view (ODBC) |