Received: from localhost (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FB8A47689E for ; Sun, 12 Jan 2003 19:48:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from candle.pha.pa.us (momjian.navpoint.com [207.106.42.251]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EE73476AD3 for ; Sun, 12 Jan 2003 19:48:08 -0500 (EST) Received: (from pgman@localhost) by candle.pha.pa.us (8.11.6/8.10.1) id h0D0m2O27520; Sun, 12 Jan 2003 19:48:02 -0500 (EST) From: Bruce Momjian Message-Id: <200301130048.h0D0m2O27520@candle.pha.pa.us> Subject: Re: MOVE LAST: why? In-Reply-To: <16921.1042418690@sss.pgh.pa.us> To: Tom Lane Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2003 19:48:02 -0500 (EST) Cc: Hiroshi Inoue , 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: 200301/541 X-Sequence-Number: 34151 Tom Lane wrote: > 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. 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