Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.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.
BTW, several of the earlier threads complained of needing to make NEXT a fully-reserved word in order to get this to parse without shift/reduce conflicts. How did you avoid that? I notice that your patch puts the new production into c_expr not func_expr_common_subexpr which would seem like the obvious place. If that is what's making the difference it seems rather fragile, and it would mean that NEXT VALUE FOR doesn't act like a function in some syntactic contexts like a FROM-function. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers