On Wed, 2002-11-27 at 12:24, Tom Lane wrote:
> I would think his point is that the above paragraph specifies behavior
> that is very definitely NOT like Postgres'.
Ah, I see now -- yeah, I misunderstood.
> > I submitted a patch for 7.4 that adjusts the
> > CREATE SEQUENCE grammar to match SQL2003's CREATE SEQUENCE a little more
> > closely,
> Did we apply it? I'm inclined not to, until we nail down the semantic
> implications a little more. Conforming to the spec on syntax when we
> don't on semantics strikes me as a bad idea.
I agree, although the patch has already been applied.
There's already a need to reform the way in which the next value of a
sequence is produced (nextval() makes it difficult to get the dependancy
information right); would it be a good idea to change it to be
completely SQL compatible at the same time?
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: David Wheeler||Date: 2002-11-27 18:24:51|
|Subject: ANNOUNCE: DBD::Pg 1.20|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2002-11-27 17:24:14|
|Subject: Re: next value expression |