From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Zoltan Boszormenyi <zboszor(at)dunaweb(dot)hu> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: SERIAL problems? |
Date: | 2006-06-06 21:28:17 |
Message-ID: | 23436.1149629297@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Zoltan Boszormenyi <zboszor(at)dunaweb(dot)hu> writes:
> What are the "existing problems"?
Please read the archives; this has been discussed recently.
There's a lot of disagreement about what ALTER should allow
and what pg_dump should do with an altered sequence.
> I am asking because I am experimenting to implement
> the SQL2003 compliant form for the serial type
> to be able specify the underlying sequence
> parameters:
Be aware that the big problem with SQL2003 is that it expects an
"action at a distance" behavior whereby different references to a
generator all return the same result if executed within the same
query cycle. This makes the construct not equivalent to either
nextval() or currval(), but some hybrid with hidden state; and
changing of that state would have to tie into core parts of the
executor. It looks pretty messy :-(
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-06-06 22:17:30 | Re: That EXPLAIN ANALYZE patch still needs work |
Previous Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2006-06-06 21:24:14 | Re: That EXPLAIN ANALYZE patch still needs work |