Michael Paesold wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: > > However, we could certainly add the NEXT VALUE FOR syntax if that will > > satisfy your concern about syntax. > > Since the NEXT VALUE FOR syntax has a special meaning, would it be better to > support the oracle-style syntax sequence.nextval for now (and use the > ::regclass for this)? I am not sure how easy that is considering > schema.sequence.nextval.
Yes, that is the direction I thought we were going. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
