Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, 2002-11-27 at 10:29, Manfred Koizar wrote:
>> By accident I stumbled across the following paragraph in the August
>> 2002 draft of SQL 2003:
>> If there are multiple instances of <next value expression>s
>> specifying the same sequence generator within a single
>> SQL-statement, all those instances return the same value for a
>> given row processed by that SQL-statement.
>> Is this of any relevance to PG's nextval()?
> Somewhat -- SQL2003 defines sequence generators that are pretty much
> identical in functionality to PostgreSQL's sequences, although the
> syntax is a bit different.
I would think his point is that the above paragraph specifies behavior
that is very definitely NOT like Postgres'.
> I submitted a patch for 7.4 that adjusts the
> CREATE SEQUENCE grammar to match SQL2003's CREATE SEQUENCE a little more
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.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Neil Conway||Date: 2002-11-27 18:20:19|
|Subject: Re: next value expression|
|Previous:||From: Thomas A. Lowery||Date: 2002-11-27 17:20:00|
|Subject: Re: Interface update for 7.3|