| 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 14:02:54 |
| Message-ID: | 1054044173.93507.5.camel@jester |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
On Tue, 2003-05-27 at 09:57, Tom Lane wrote:
> Rod Taylor <rbt(at)rbt(dot)ca> writes:
> > 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?
>
> By that time we'll have done the Oracle-style foo.nextval, and it'll
> become kind of a moot point ;-)
Well, not moot for anyone trying to go between PostgreSQL and a
non-Oracle (or SapDB) database, but certainly of less concern.
--
Rod Taylor <rbt(at)rbt(dot)ca>
PGP Key: http://www.rbt.ca/rbtpub.asc
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-05-27 14:07:05 | Re: SIGSEGV on cvs tip/7.3.2 |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-05-27 13:57:44 | Re: Sequence usage patch |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-05-27 16:15:27 | Re: [BUGS] Bug #928: server_min_messages (log_min_messages |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-05-27 13:57:44 | Re: Sequence usage patch |