| From: | Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: MOVE LAST: why? |
| Date: | 2003-01-09 00:29:57 |
| Message-ID: | 3E1CC285.3EC651FC@tpf.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD wrote:
>
> > FETCH LAST should return the last one row.
> > FETCH RELATIVE m should return a row after skipping
> > m rows if we follow the SQL standard and so the current
> > implementation of FETCH RELATIVE is broken.
>
> Yes, the syntax could probably be
> FETCH [n] RELATIVE m
> to keep the functionality to fetch n rows at once and not only one
> after skipping m rows.
What I've thought is
FETCH RELATIVE m [n].
Either is OK to me.
regards,
Hiroshi Inoue
http://w2422.nsk.ne.jp/~inoue/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 2003-01-09 00:49:41 | Re: ODBC fix |
| Previous Message | Hannu Krosing | 2003-01-09 00:00:34 | Re: MOVE LAST: why? |