Received: from localhost (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FCB7475C9E
	for <pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org>;
	Tue,  7 Jan 2003 22:50:42 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (unknown [192.204.191.242])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE461475956
	for <pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org>;
	Tue,  7 Jan 2003 22:50:41 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h083oW0U000502;
	Tue, 7 Jan 2003 22:50:32 -0500 (EST)
To: Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue@tpf.co.jp>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>,
	pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org
Subject: Re: MOVE LAST: why? 
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>
Comments: In-reply-to Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue@tpf.co.jp>
	message dated "Wed, 08 Jan 2003 12:41:01 +0900"
Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2003 22:50:32 -0500
Message-ID: <501.1041997832@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS new-20020517
X-Archive-Number: 200301/369
X-Sequence-Number: 33979

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