Re: [PATCHES] Sequence usage patch

From: "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>
To: "Rod Taylor" <rbt(at)rbt(dot)ca>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Sequence usage patch
Date: 2003-05-28 02:09:24
Message-ID: 06e201c324be$29753840$6500a8c0@fhp.internal
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

(Moved to -hackers)

> 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 ;-)

I actually like the NEXT VALUE FOR a lot more. The reason is that the
Oracle syntax is very much an 'object.property' lookup, which we do nowhere
else in PostgreSQL. In fact, it's actually a bit bizarre when you start
going database.schema.sequence.nextval, etc.

The NEXT VALUE FOR syntax would be more in keeping with our current sytacies
methinks...

Chris

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Christopher Kings-Lynne 2003-05-28 02:11:58 Re: SIGSEGV on cvs tip/7.3.2
Previous Message The Hermit Hacker 2003-05-28 00:31:45 Re: RBLs ... I'm tired of spam ...

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Fernando Nasser 2003-05-28 14:51:00 JDBC: LONGVARBINARY upload patch
Previous Message Chris Campbell 2003-05-27 20:06:56 Re: Adding Rendezvous support to postmaster