From: Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue@tpf.co.jp>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org
Subject: Re: MOVE LAST: why?
Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003 12:41:01 +0900
Message-ID: <3E1B9DCD.75859501@tpf.co.jp> (raw)
References: <200301072329.h07NT2X28922@candle.pha.pa.us>
<27934.1041984327@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> 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.
IIRC *FETCH LAST* doesn't mean *FETCH ALL*.
In addition *FETCH 0* seems to be changed to mean
*FETCH RELATIVE 0* currently. Is it reasonable ?
*FETCH n* never means *FETCH RELATIVE n*.
regards,
Hiroshi Inoue
http://w2422.nsk.ne.jp/~inoue/
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: Inoue@tpf.co.jp, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, pgman@candle.pha.pa.us, pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org
Subject: Re: MOVE LAST: why?
In-Reply-To: <3E1B9DCD.75859501@tpf.co.jp>
* 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