| From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: MOVE LAST: why? |
| Date: | 2003-01-08 04:39:27 |
| Message-ID: | 200301080439.h084dRa21093@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-interfaces |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Refresh my memory: what is the point of inventing an additional LAST
> >> keyword, when the behavior is exactly the same as MOVE ALL ?
>
> > SQL compatibility, per Peter.
>
> Oh, I see. But then really it should be documented as a FETCH keyword,
> not only a MOVE keyword. Will fix.
Yes. SQL standard doesn't have move, but it has FETCH LAST, so we
borrowed it for MOVE.
--
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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 2003-01-08 04:58:30 | Re: MOVE LAST: why? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-01-08 04:33:21 | Re: MOVE LAST: why? |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 2003-01-08 04:58:30 | Re: MOVE LAST: why? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-01-08 04:33:21 | Re: MOVE LAST: why? |