Gavin Sherry wrote:
> > I don't think we should use the spec syntax until we're prepared to
> > meet the spec semantics, so NEXT VALUE FOR as part of the current patch
> > seems "out".
> Well, AFAICT, the only part of the spec we cannot implement is what you
> quote above. Therefore, why can't we support NEXT VALUE FOR seqname and
> reject table creation/alteration which would add more than one reference
> to the same sequence. That will allow us to avoid an intermediate step
> in getting to the SQL2003 syntax. Having to support three different
> sequence incrementation mechanisms for three flavours of PostgreSQL is
> going to be a real PITA.

Oh, if we went in that direction, how would we fix loading previous
dumps?  Isn't NEXT VALUE for going to map internally to the
early-binding version of nextval().  I am thinking mucking with
nextval() and its casts is going to be required for ALTER SCHEMA RENAME
to work with any kind of reliability.

  Bruce Momjian                        |               |  (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 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

Reply via email to