Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Sequence usage patch

From: Rod Taylor <rbt(at)rbt(dot)ca>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Sequence usage patch
Date: 2003-05-27 13:41:44
Message-ID: 1054042904.52881.238.camel@jester (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
On Tue, 2003-05-27 at 00:21, Tom Lane wrote:
> Rod Taylor <rbt(at)rbt(dot)ca> writes:
> > I don't see PREVIOUS as a reserved word, but CURRENT
> > certainly is -- WHERE CURRENT OF for cursors, and several other places.
> 
> > The attached patch makes CURRENT a reserved word.
> 
> I do not think it will be necessary to treat CURRENT as a fully-reserved
> word in order to support WHERE CURRENT OF, and accordingly I'm not very

Very well..  I'll hold onto the CURRENT portion until the term current
has been reserved (bound to happen eventually if we implement all of
SQL99).

Are you ok with the DB2 and draft-spec syntax of NEXT VALUE FOR (where
value is not a reserved word)?  Or should I hold onto that until the
spec has gone through the final draft / release?

-- 
Rod Taylor <rbt(at)rbt(dot)ca>

PGP Key: http://www.rbt.ca/rbtpub.asc

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2003-05-27 13:49:37
Subject: Re: [BUGS] Bug #928: server_min_messages (log_min_messages in CVS)
Previous:From: Shridhar DaithankarDate: 2003-05-27 13:17:06
Subject: Re: techdocs down?

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2003-05-27 13:49:37
Subject: Re: [BUGS] Bug #928: server_min_messages (log_min_messages in CVS)
Previous:From: Gavin SherryDate: 2003-05-27 06:07:21
Subject: Re: Sequence usage patch

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group