| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Munro <munro(at)ip9(dot)org> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: NEXT VALUE FOR <sequence> |
| Date: | 2014-10-02 13:48:01 |
| Message-ID: | 25659.1412257681@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Thomas Munro <munro(at)ip9(dot)org> writes:
> SQL:2003 introduced the function NEXT VALUE FOR <sequence>. Google
> tells me that at least DB2, SQL Server and a few niche databases
> understand it so far. As far as I can tell there is no standardised
> equivalent of currval and setval (but I only have access to second
> hand information about the standard, like articles and the manuals of
> other products).
Have you checked the archives about this? My recollection is that one
reason it's not in there (aside from having to reserve "NEXT") is that
the standard-mandated semantics are not the same as nextval().
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2014-10-02 13:54:13 | Re: Per table autovacuum vacuum cost limit behaviour strange |
| Previous Message | Michael Banck | 2014-10-02 13:21:48 | Log notice that checkpoint is to be written on shutdown |