Re: MOVE LAST: why?

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: MOVE LAST: why?
Date: 2003-01-13 00:48:02
Message-ID: 200301130048.h0D0m2O27520@candle.pha.pa.us
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:
> > Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> > 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.
>
> > OK, so we will switch it to MOVE END. That seems OK.
>
> What is good about that??? We already have a nonstandard keyword
> for this functionality: MOVE ALL. There is no reason to invent another
> one.
>
> I tend to agree with Hiroshi that it's a bad idea to add a standard
> keyword to represent not-quite-standard behavior. MOVE ALL is our
> historical spelling for this functionality, and adding MOVE LAST is
> not really bringing anything to the party.

OK.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kevin Brown 2003-01-13 03:12:41 Re: Prepared statements question
Previous Message Tom Lane 2003-01-13 00:44:50 Re: MOVE LAST: why?

Browse pgsql-interfaces by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Nigel J. Andrews 2003-01-13 07:34:12 Re: [GENERAL] problem with update rules on a view (ODBC)
Previous Message Tom Lane 2003-01-13 00:44:50 Re: MOVE LAST: why?