| From: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg(at)aon(dot)at>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: next value expression |
| Date: | 2002-11-27 18:20:19 |
| Message-ID: | 1038421219.7588.47.camel@tokyo |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2002-11-27 at 12:24, Tom Lane wrote:
> I would think his point is that the above paragraph specifies behavior
> that is very definitely NOT like Postgres'.
Ah, I see now -- yeah, I misunderstood.
> > I submitted a patch for 7.4 that adjusts the
> > CREATE SEQUENCE grammar to match SQL2003's CREATE SEQUENCE a little more
> > closely,
>
> 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.
I agree, although the patch has already been applied.
There's already a need to reform the way in which the next value of a
sequence is produced (nextval() makes it difficult to get the dependancy
information right); would it be a good idea to change it to be
completely SQL compatible at the same time?
Cheers,
Neil
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Wheeler | 2002-11-27 18:24:51 | ANNOUNCE: DBD::Pg 1.20 |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-11-27 17:24:14 | Re: next value expression |