Received: from localhost (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AB3A476A6A for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 23:39:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from candle.pha.pa.us (momjian.navpoint.com [207.106.42.251]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67294476678 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 23:39:52 -0500 (EST) Received: (from pgman@localhost) by candle.pha.pa.us (8.11.6/8.10.1) id h084dRa21093; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 23:39:27 -0500 (EST) From: Bruce Momjian Message-Id: <200301080439.h084dRa21093@candle.pha.pa.us> Subject: Re: MOVE LAST: why? In-Reply-To: <27934.1041984327@sss.pgh.pa.us> To: Tom Lane Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 23:39:27 -0500 (EST) Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL99 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS new-20020517 X-Archive-Number: 200301/373 X-Sequence-Number: 33983 Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian 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. Yes. SQL standard doesn't have move, but it has FETCH LAST, so we borrowed it for MOVE. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073