Received: from localhost (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0D07476501 for ; Sun, 12 Jan 2003 18:35:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from sd.tpf.co.jp (sd.tpf.co.jp [210.161.239.34]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A52344761E8 for ; Sun, 12 Jan 2003 18:35:58 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 7927 invoked from network); 12 Jan 2003 23:36:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO viscomail.tpf.co.jp) (100.0.0.108) by sd2.tpf-fw-c.co.jp with SMTP; 12 Jan 2003 23:36:00 -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 IAA20087; Mon, 13 Jan 2003 08:35:54 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <3E21FC5A.5FEE7FFC@tpf.co.jp> Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 08:38:02 +0900 From: Hiroshi Inoue X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [ja] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: ja MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bruce Momjian Cc: Tom Lane , pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Subject: Re: MOVE LAST: why? References: <200301121628.h0CGS9T17109@candle.pha.pa.us> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-2022-jp Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS new-20020517 X-Archive-Number: 200301/538 X-Sequence-Number: 34148 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/