From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue@tpf.co.jp>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org
Subject: Re: MOVE LAST: why?
Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2003 22:50:32 -0500
Message-ID: <501.1041997832@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3E1B9DCD.75859501@tpf.co.jp>
References: <200301072329.h07NT2X28922@candle.pha.pa.us>
<27934.1041984327@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<3E1B9DCD.75859501@tpf.co.jp>
Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue@tpf.co.jp> writes:
> IIRC *FETCH LAST* doesn't mean *FETCH ALL*.
SQL92 says
ii) If the <fetch orientation> implicitly or explicitly spec-
ifies NEXT, specifies ABSOLUTE or RELATIVE with K greater
than N, or specifies LAST, then CR is positioned after the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
last row.
^^^^^^^^
So as far as the ending cursor position is concerned, LAST agrees with
ALL. It looks to me like the SQL definition only contemplates returning
a single row, but it's less than clear *which* row they mean for LAST.
> In addition *FETCH 0* seems to be changed to mean
> *FETCH RELATIVE 0* currently. Is it reasonable ?
Sure. FETCH n in Postgres has always corresponded to FETCH RELATIVE n.
regards, tom lane
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: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, Inoue@tpf.co.jp, pgman@candle.pha.pa.us, pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org
Subject: Re: MOVE LAST: why?
In-Reply-To: <501.1041997832@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* 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