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

Re: Sequence usage patch

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Rod Taylor <rbt(at)rbt(dot)ca>
Cc: PostgreSQL Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Sequence usage patch
Date: 2003-05-27 13:57:44
Message-ID: 14771.1054043864@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
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 ;-)

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Rod TaylorDate: 2003-05-27 14:02:54
Subject: Re: Sequence usage patch
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2003-05-27 13:49:37
Subject: Re: [BUGS] Bug #928: server_min_messages (log_min_messages in CVS)

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Rod TaylorDate: 2003-05-27 14:02:54
Subject: Re: Sequence usage patch
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2003-05-27 13:49:37
Subject: Re: [BUGS] Bug #928: server_min_messages (log_min_messages in CVS)

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