Received: from localhost (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDEC0475E26 for ; Sun, 12 Jan 2003 11:28:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from candle.pha.pa.us (momjian.navpoint.com [207.106.42.251]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A029A475D00 for ; Sun, 12 Jan 2003 11:28:18 -0500 (EST) Received: (from pgman@localhost) by candle.pha.pa.us (8.11.6/8.10.1) id h0CGS9T17109; Sun, 12 Jan 2003 11:28:09 -0500 (EST) From: Bruce Momjian Message-Id: <200301121628.h0CGS9T17109@candle.pha.pa.us> Subject: Re: MOVE LAST: why? In-Reply-To: To: Hiroshi Inoue Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2003 11:28:09 -0500 (EST) Cc: Tom Lane , 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: 200301/531 X-Sequence-Number: 34141 Hiroshi Inoue wrote: > > Honestly I'm not so enthusiastic about scrollable cursors. > > Even though PostgreSQL provides an efficient scrollable > > cursor, I would use it little unless it could survive > > across transactions. > > > > Anyway it's too bad that FETCH LAST means FETCH ALL. > > I would remove LAST, RELATIVE and SCROLL keywords > for cursor related operations if there's no objection. Are you suggesting removing FETCH LAST _and_ MOVE LAST?. I think MOVE LAST works well. -- 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