Received: from localhost (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 558EE4760BD for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 19:05:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (unknown [192.204.191.242]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F41E475E14 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 19:05:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h0805R0U027935; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 19:05:27 -0500 (EST) To: Bruce Momjian Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org Subject: Re: MOVE LAST: why? In-reply-to: <200301072329.h07NT2X28922@candle.pha.pa.us> References: <200301072329.h07NT2X28922@candle.pha.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Bruce Momjian message dated "Tue, 07 Jan 2003 18:29:02 -0500" Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2003 19:05:27 -0500 Message-ID: <27934.1041984327@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS new-20020517 X-Archive-Number: 200301/365 X-Sequence-Number: 33975 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. regards, tom lane