From: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue@tpf.co.jp>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: MOVE LAST: why?
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2003 19:48:02 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <200301130048.h0D0m2O27520@candle.pha.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <16921.1042418690@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.
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
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: pgman@candle.pha.pa.us, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, Inoue@tpf.co.jp, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: MOVE LAST: why?
In-Reply-To: <200301130048.h0D0m2O27520@candle.pha.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