Re: tweak CREATE SEQUENCE grammar

Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> writes:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> Patch rejected. Seems we need to address all the SQL standards changes
>> in this area in one patch.

> Why's that?

My two cents: I'm not eager to change our existing semantics of
sequences. If we decide that SQL2002 matches our semantics then it
makes sense to accept their syntax as well as our historical one.
(Unlike Peter and Bruce, I see no reason not to do that work
incrementally, but OTOH there's not much reason not to do it in one
patch either.) But if we decide that the semantics aren't the same
then converging the grammar is probably a mistake.

Accordingly, I think we ought to resolve Peter's objection about the
semantics before deciding how to proceed. The bit Neil quoted sure
sounds like SQL2002 sequences behave like ours; Peter, why do you
think they are different?

regards, tom lane