From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Cc: Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue@tpf.co.jp>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: MOVE LAST: why?
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2003 19:44:50 -0500
Message-ID: <16921.1042418690@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200301122357.h0CNvCJ24464@candle.pha.pa.us>
References: <200301122357.h0CNvCJ24464@candle.pha.pa.us>
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.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.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, pgman@candle.pha.pa.us, Inoue@tpf.co.jp, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: MOVE LAST: why?
In-Reply-To: <16921.1042418690@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox