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 23:33:21 -0500
Message-ID: <863.1042000401@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3E1BA5E6.9463718F@tpf.co.jp>
References: <200301072329.h07NT2X28922@candle.pha.pa.us>
<27934.1041984327@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<3E1B9DCD.75859501@tpf.co.jp>
<501.1041997832@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<3E1BA5E6.9463718F@tpf.co.jp>
Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue@tpf.co.jp> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Sure. FETCH n in Postgres has always corresponded to FETCH RELATIVE n.
> IIRC in SQL standard FETCH retrieves rows one by one.
Yes, Postgres' idea of FETCH is only weakly related to the spec's idea.
But I believe you get similar results if you consider only the row last
returned by our FETCH.
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: <863.1042000401@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