On 1/6/06, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
With bigserial this is more like CPU DoS, while other users can work normally. > 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. Google tells that Oracle has ALTER and SELECT; DB2 has ALTER and USAGE. I found SQL2003 pdf's too ... from my reading it has only USAGE. 5WD-02-Foundation-2003-09.pdf: page 724 -> General Rules -> #2 page 740 -> Syntax rules -> #3 Everything combined: SELECT: currval UPDATE: nextval USAGE: currval, nextval ALTER: setval Confusing? -- marko ---------------------------(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