| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Jille Timmermans <jille(at)quis(dot)cx>, Ronan Dunklau <ronan(dot)dunklau(at)aiven(dot)io>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Support for grabbing multiple consecutive values with nextval() |
| Date: | 2022-10-12 05:38:12 |
| Message-ID: | Y0ZSxNu/+bzzaIzu@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Jul 30, 2022 at 04:21:07PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> FWIW, I find the result set approach more intuitive and robust,
> particularly in the case of a sequence has non-default values
> INCREMENT and min/max values. This reduces the dependency of what an
> application needs to know about the details of a given sequence. With
> only the last value reported, the application would need to compile
> things by itself.
It seems like there is a consensus here, but the thread has no
activity for the past two months, so I have marked the patch as
returned with feedback for now.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2022-10-12 05:42:02 | Re: remove_useless_groupby_columns is too enthusiastic |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2022-10-12 05:36:29 | Re: pg_checksum: add test for coverage |