Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: MOVE LAST: why?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: MOVE LAST: why?
Date: 2003-01-08 00:05:27
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-interfaces
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Refresh my memory: what is the point of inventing an additional LAST
>> keyword, when the behavior is exactly the same as MOVE ALL ?

> SQL compatibility, per Peter.

Oh, I see.  But then really it should be documented as a FETCH keyword,
not only a MOVE keyword.  Will fix.

			regards, tom lane

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: carl garlandDate: 2003-01-08 01:07:39
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Have people taken a look at pgdiff yet?
Previous:From: Jean-Luc LachanceDate: 2003-01-07 23:59:45
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] I feel the need for speed. What am I doing

pgsql-interfaces by date

Next:From: D'Arcy J.M. CainDate: 2003-01-08 02:51:48
Subject: Re: [ADMIN] is still wrong in Postgres 7.3.1 rpm
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2003-01-07 23:29:02
Subject: Re: MOVE LAST: why?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group