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
