Re: Sequence usage patch

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 13:41:44
Message-ID: 1054042904.52881.238.camel@jester
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

On Tue, 2003-05-27 at 00:21, Tom Lane wrote:
> Rod Taylor <rbt(at)rbt(dot)ca> writes:
> > I don't see PREVIOUS as a reserved word, but CURRENT
> > certainly is -- WHERE CURRENT OF for cursors, and several other places.
>
> > The attached patch makes CURRENT a reserved word.
>
> I do not think it will be necessary to treat CURRENT as a fully-reserved
> word in order to support WHERE CURRENT OF, and accordingly I'm not very

Very well.. I'll hold onto the CURRENT portion until the term current
has been reserved (bound to happen eventually if we implement all of
SQL99).

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?

--
Rod Taylor <rbt(at)rbt(dot)ca>

PGP Key: http://www.rbt.ca/rbtpub.asc

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2003-05-27 13:49:37 Re: [BUGS] Bug #928: server_min_messages (log_min_messages in CVS)
Previous Message Shridhar Daithankar 2003-05-27 13:17:06 Re: techdocs down?

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2003-05-27 13:49:37 Re: [BUGS] Bug #928: server_min_messages (log_min_messages in CVS)
Previous Message Gavin Sherry 2003-05-27 06:07:21 Re: Sequence usage patch