Tom Lane wrote:
> Marko Kreen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > But my question is rather - is there any scenario where setval() should
> > go with nextval()?
> > It seems that their pairing is an accident and should be fixed.
> I think the original argument for the current design was that with
> enough nextval's you can duplicate the effect of a setval.  This is only
> strictly true if the sequence is CYCLE mode, and even then it'd take a
> whole lot of patience to wrap an int8 sequence around ... but the
> distinction between them is not so large as you make it out to be.
> In any case I think we are wasting our time discussing it, and instead
> should be looking through the SQL2003 spec to see what it requires.
> Bruce couldn't find anything in it about this but I can't believe the
> info isn't there somewhere.

What I did was to read through the GRANT and SEQUENCE sections, then I
dumped it to text and did a grep for 'grant' or perm* appearing on the
same line as sequence, and came up with nothing.

  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 6: explain analyze is your friend

Reply via email to