| From: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: support for NEXT VALUE FOR expression |
| Date: | 2016-08-17 04:10:57 |
| Message-ID: | CAEepm=2X=rrkthuDA6i+B+tpBgtkFaAWTpKYss-k0ixusRBJrg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> Here is a patch for implementing the NEXT VALUE FOR expression. This is
>> the SQL-standard conforming version of our nextval() function, and it's
>> also used by Oracle, MS SQL, DB2. Example:
>
> We discussed this before and concluded that NEXT VALUE FOR is in fact
> *not* an exact semantic equivalent of nextval():
>
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/14790.1083955136%40sss.pgh.pa.us
And also again 10 years later when I proposed it :-)
> I remain of the opinion that using spec-compliant syntax for
> non-spec-compliant behavior isn't a great advance.
--
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-08-17 04:19:21 | Re: support for NEXT VALUE FOR expression |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-08-17 03:52:50 | Re: support for NEXT VALUE FOR expression |