Re: move 0 behaviour

Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
>
> > So, that is why MOVE 0 goes to the end of the cursor. One idea would be
> > for MOVE 0 to actually move nothing, but jdbc and others need the
> > ability to move the end of the cursor, perhaps to then back up a certain
> > amount and read from there. Seems MOVE 0 is the logical way to do that.
> > (I can't think of another reasonable value).
>
> It would seem more logical and reasonable for MOVE 0 to do nothing and
> have some special syntax such as MOVE LAST to move to the end. (MOVE LAST
> would actually be consistent with the standard syntax FETCH LAST.)

Yea, I started thinking and we need to get MOVE/FETCH to make sense.
The following patch makes FETCH/MOVE 0 do nothing, and FETCH LAST move
to the end. I was going to use the word END, but if LAST is more
standard, we will use that. It uses INT_MAX in the grammar for FETCH
ALL/MOVE LAST, but maps that to zero so it is consistent in the
/executor code.

I will keep this patch for 7.4.

JDBC folks, I realize you need this. Seems you will have to use MOVE 0
for 7,3 and MOVE LAST for 7.4.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073