From: | Rod Taylor <pg(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: NEXT VALUE FOR... |
Date: | 2004-05-07 18:52:46 |
Message-ID: | 1083955965.28644.16.camel@jester |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
On Fri, 2004-05-07 at 14:38, Tom Lane wrote:
> Rod Taylor <pg(at)rbt(dot)ca> writes:
> > NEXT VALUE FOR and CURRENT VALUE FOR where CURRENT is an unreserved
> > keyword and VALUE is not reserved in any way (ident with comparison to
> > "value").
>
> I see one pretty big problem with this: the SQL2003 spec says clearly
> that multiple occurrences of NEXT VALUE FOR should all generate the same
> value within a particular row. (See, eg, last sentence of 4.21.2 or the
<snip>
> Offhand I see no simple way to do what the spec asks for within Postgres
> :-( but that doesn't mean we should ignore the requirement.
You're right. I had missed that.
Does that mean the below insert should give both col1 and col2 the same
value?
CREATE TABLE test (
col1 integer DEFAULT NEXT VALUE FOR t_seq,
col2 integer DEFAULT NEXT VALUE FOR t_seq
);
INSERT INTO TABLE DEFAULT VALUES;
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2004-05-07 19:06:15 | Re: Dollar Quoting doc patch--resend. |
Previous Message | Thomas Hallgren | 2004-05-07 18:47:32 | Patch for Makefile.shlib |