On 1/6/06, Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> wrote:
> Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> > It might be nice to split nextval and currval access as well. nextval access
> > corresponds to INSERT and currval access to SELECT.
>
> Uh, that is already in the code. nextval()/setval() is UPDATE, and
> currval() is SELECT.
This seems weird. Shouldn't nextval/currval go together and setval
separately?
Considering there's no currval() without nextval(), what point
is disallowing currval() when user is able to call nextval()?
I rather want to allow nextval/currval and disable setval as it
allows regular user to DoS the database.
--
marko
[removing Tom from CC as he bounces gmail]
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: 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
