Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
IIRC *FETCH LAST* doesn't mean *FETCH ALL*.
In addition *FETCH 0* seems to be changed to mean
*FETCH RELATIVE 0* currently. Is it reasonable ?
*FETCH n* never means *FETCH RELATIVE n*.
regards,
Hiroshi Inoue
http://w2422.nsk.ne.jp/~inoue/
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
