Gavin Sherry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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.
And how are you going to determine whether a query (not a table definition) contains more than one NEXT VALUE FOR the same sequence? Bear in mind some of them could be hidden down inside views or functions. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend