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
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? |
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? |