Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue@tpf.co.jp> writes:
> FETCH LAST should return the last one row.
That's not clear to me. Generally, I would think the cursor should
remain positioned on whatever row is returned, but the spec clearly says
that the final cursor position after FETCH LAST is *after* the last row.
Nor do I see where exactly it says that the last row is the one to
return in this case; the spec seems to treat LAST the same as PRIOR, so
that the *first* row encountered in the movement direction might be the
one to return. Can you disentangle the spec wording for me?
> 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.
No objection to that here. Are you volunteering to make it do that?
regards, tom lane