| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: MOVE LAST: why? |
| Date: | 2003-01-08 03:50:32 |
| Message-ID: | 501.1041997832@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-interfaces |
Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-01-08 04:07:35 | Re: [GENERAL] I feel the need for speed. What am I doing wrong? |
| Previous Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 2003-01-08 03:41:01 | Re: MOVE LAST: why? |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-01-08 04:12:31 | Re: [ADMIN] pgdb.py is still wrong in Postgres 7.3.1 rpm |
| Previous Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 2003-01-08 03:41:01 | Re: MOVE LAST: why? |