From: Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue@tpf.co.jp>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: MOVE LAST: why?
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 08:38:02 +0900
Message-ID: <3E21FC5A.5FEE7FFC@tpf.co.jp> (raw)
References: <200301121628.h0CGS9T17109@candle.pha.pa.us>
Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> > > Honestly I'm not so enthusiastic about scrollable cursors.
> > > Even though PostgreSQL provides an efficient scrollable
> > > cursor, I would use it little unless it could survive
> > > across transactions.
> > >
> > > Anyway it's too bad that FETCH LAST means FETCH ALL.
> >
> > I would remove LAST, RELATIVE and SCROLL keywords
> > for cursor related operations if there's no objection.
>
> 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.
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, pgman@candle.pha.pa.us, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: MOVE LAST: why?
In-Reply-To: <3E21FC5A.5FEE7FFC@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