Should UPDATE also allow currval()?  Your logic below seems to suggest


Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian <> writes:
> >> Does the standard require USAGE to support currval?
> > currval isn't in the standard (unless I missed something), so it has
> > nothing to say one way or the other on the point.
> Wait, I take that back.  Remember our previous discussions about this
> point: the spec's NEXT VALUE FOR construct is *not* equivalent to
> nextval, because they specify that the sequence advances just once per
> command even if the command says NEXT VALUE FOR in multiple places.
> This means that NEXT VALUE FOR is effectively both nextval and currval;
> the first one in a command does nextval and the rest do currval.
> Accordingly, I think it's reasonable to read the spec as saying that
> USAGE privilege encompasses both nextval and currval.
>                       regards, tom lane

  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 4: Have you searched our list archives?


Reply via email to