"John Hansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I'm all for it. Even more so if the 'currval(void) called before > nextval(seq_name)' error message could be supressed by a GUC variable > and return 0 instead.
I really have a hard time seeing the argument why that condition does not mean "your application is broken and you should fix it". Much less why "0" is the correct response --- it's barely conceivable that you could persuade me that NULL is ok, but never a value that is a valid sequence value. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly