Received: from localhost (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B55F475ADE for ; Sun, 12 Jan 2003 18:57:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from candle.pha.pa.us (momjian.navpoint.com [207.106.42.251]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4689475A71 for ; Sun, 12 Jan 2003 18:57:19 -0500 (EST) Received: (from pgman@localhost) by candle.pha.pa.us (8.11.6/8.10.1) id h0CNvCJ24464; Sun, 12 Jan 2003 18:57:12 -0500 (EST) From: Bruce Momjian Message-Id: <200301122357.h0CNvCJ24464@candle.pha.pa.us> Subject: Re: MOVE LAST: why? In-Reply-To: <3E21FC5A.5FEE7FFC@tpf.co.jp> To: Hiroshi Inoue Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2003 18:57:12 -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: 200301/539 X-Sequence-Number: 34149 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. -- 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