
> 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.

Andreas

Wed, 8 Jan 2003 11:04:49 +0100
"Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <ZeugswetterA@spardat.at>
Re: MOVE LAST: why?
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/

Thu, 09 Jan 2003 09:29:57 +0900
Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue@tpf.co.jp>
Re: MOVE LAST: why?