| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Proposed patch for sequence-renaming problems |
| Date: | 2005-09-28 16:47:41 |
| Message-ID: | 433AC92D.1000207@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane wrote:
>The more I think about it, the more I think that two sets of function
>names might not be such an awful idea. next_value(), curr_value(), and
>set_value() seem like they'd work well enough. Then we'd just say that
>nextval and friends are deprecated except when you need late binding,
>and we'd be done.
>
>
>
>
Personally, I like this more than the overloading idea.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paesold | 2005-09-28 16:57:00 | Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch for sequence-renaming problems |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-09-28 16:42:13 | Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch for sequence-renaming problems |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paesold | 2005-09-28 16:57:00 | Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch for sequence-renaming problems |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-09-28 16:42:13 | Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch for sequence-renaming problems |