Received: from localhost (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 944A74769B4 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 22:38:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from sd.tpf.co.jp (sd.tpf.co.jp [210.161.239.34]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 48F784766D3 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 22:38:55 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 4458 invoked from network); 8 Jan 2003 03:38:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO viscomail.tpf.co.jp) (100.0.0.108) by sd2.tpf-fw-c.co.jp with SMTP; 8 Jan 2003 03:38:58 -0000 Received: from tpf.co.jp (3dgateway1 [126.0.1.60]) by viscomail.tpf.co.jp (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA15621; Wed, 8 Jan 2003 12:38:58 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <3E1B9DCD.75859501@tpf.co.jp> Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003 12:41:01 +0900 From: Hiroshi Inoue X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [ja] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: ja MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tom Lane Cc: Bruce Momjian , pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org Subject: Re: MOVE LAST: why? References: <200301072329.h07NT2X28922@candle.pha.pa.us> <27934.1041984327@sss.pgh.pa.us> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-2022-jp Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS new-20020517 X-Archive-Number: 200301/368 X-Sequence-Number: 33978 Tom Lane wrote: > > 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. 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/