From: | "Vadim B(dot) Mikheev" <vadim(at)sable(dot)krasnoyarsk(dot)su> |
---|---|
To: | "Billy G(dot) Allie" <Bill(dot)Allie(at)mug(dot)org> |
Cc: | pgsql-patches(at)postgreSQL(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PATCHES] Changes to sequence.c |
Date: | 1998-03-06 12:39:58 |
Message-ID: | 34FFEE9E.18EA5CDF@sable.krasnoyarsk.su |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Billy G. Allie wrote:
>
> Vadim B. Mikheev wrote:
> >Billy G. Allie wrote:
> >>
> >> I encountered a problem (bug? feature?) where "select currval('sequence')"
> >> will generate an error if "select nextval('sequence')" is not executed
> first.
> >
> >This is feature :)
> >1. This is what Oracle does.
> >2. currval () is described as returning value returned by
> > last nextval() in _session_.
> >
> >Vadim
> >
> Does this mean we should not modify this behavior because "this is what Oracle
> does"? I can envision where using currval() before nextval() can be useful.
Actually, what you are proposing was initial behaviour of currval().
This was changed to be more consistent with 1. & 2. (note - not only 1.,
but 2. also).
But personally I haven't objection against changing this again.
Men, vote pls!
Vadim
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Zeugswetter Andreas | 1998-03-06 13:06:25 | AW: [HACKERS] Re: [PATCHES] Changes to sequence.c |
Previous Message | Mattias Kregert | 1998-03-06 10:58:30 | Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL and DBI/DBD...vs Pg.pm |