Your patch has been added to the PostgreSQL unapplied patches list at: http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches
I will try to apply it within the next 48 hours. I will probably hold it in the queue until Tom returns. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rod Taylor wrote: > It would appear the spec was approved of before we got foo.nextval, so > here it is again. > > NEXT VALUE FOR and CURRENT VALUE FOR where CURRENT is an unreserved > keyword and VALUE is not reserved in any way (ident with comparison to > "value"). > > This allows the default of a table to depend on a sequence, CASCADE drop > of the sequence removes removes references to it. > > CURRENT VALUE FOR is an extension of the spec. > > > This gives us almost everything required for the Sequence feature (T176) > (as per the draft). > > We're missing the datatype specification on the sequence. > > CREATE SEQUENCE t AS numeric(130); > > > Rod Taylor <rbt ( at ) rbt ( dot ) ca> writes: > > Are you ok with the DB2 and draft-spec syntax of NEXT VALUE FOR (where > > value is not a reserved word)? Or should I hold onto that until the > > spec has gone through the final draft / release? > > By that time we'll have done the Oracle-style foo.nextval, and it'll > become kind of a moot point ;-) > > regards, tom lane [ Attachment, skipping... ] > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your > joining column's datatypes do not match -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (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 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match