Tom Lane wrote: > Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 3:41 PM > To: John Hansen > Cc: Neil Conway; Dennis Bjorklund; pgsql-patches@postgresql.org > Subject: Re: [PATCHES] lastval() > > "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".
I'm _not_ saying that, I'm saying that the ports that would be a breeze with this behaviour, probably won't happen without. Which is a shame. Also note that I'm not suggesting this be the default behaviour. I'm not even suggesting it be a configurable permanent (in fact it probably shouldn't be configurable thru postgresql.conf), but merely a SET parameter, that you can set prior to executing lastval(), or perhaps as lastval(false/true); > 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. NULL would do fine. > regards, tom lane > > ... John ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])