Received: from localhost (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C2D54761E8 for ; Sun, 12 Jan 2003 19:44:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (unknown [192.204.191.242]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBAFA475A71 for ; Sun, 12 Jan 2003 19:44:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h0D0io5u016922; Sun, 12 Jan 2003 19:44:50 -0500 (EST) To: Bruce Momjian Cc: Hiroshi Inoue , pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Subject: Re: MOVE LAST: why? In-reply-to: <200301122357.h0CNvCJ24464@candle.pha.pa.us> References: <200301122357.h0CNvCJ24464@candle.pha.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Bruce Momjian message dated "Sun, 12 Jan 2003 18:57:12 -0500" Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2003 19:44:50 -0500 Message-ID: <16921.1042418690@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS new-20020517 X-Archive-Number: 200301/540 X-Sequence-Number: 34150 Bruce Momjian 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