From: | "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
---|---|
To: | "Rod Taylor" <rbt(at)rbt(dot)ca>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [PATCHES] Sequence usage patch |
Date: | 2003-05-28 02:09:24 |
Message-ID: | 06e201c324be$29753840$6500a8c0@fhp.internal |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
(Moved to -hackers)
> Rod Taylor <rbt(at)rbt(dot)ca> writes:
> > Are you ok with the DB2 and draft-spec syntax of NEXT VALUE FOR (where
> > value is not a reserved word)? Or should I hold onto that until the
> > spec has gone through the final draft / release?
>
> By that time we'll have done the Oracle-style foo.nextval, and it'll
> become kind of a moot point ;-)
I actually like the NEXT VALUE FOR a lot more. The reason is that the
Oracle syntax is very much an 'object.property' lookup, which we do nowhere
else in PostgreSQL. In fact, it's actually a bit bizarre when you start
going database.schema.sequence.nextval, etc.
The NEXT VALUE FOR syntax would be more in keeping with our current sytacies
methinks...
Chris
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2003-05-28 02:11:58 | Re: SIGSEGV on cvs tip/7.3.2 |
Previous Message | The Hermit Hacker | 2003-05-28 00:31:45 | Re: RBLs ... I'm tired of spam ... |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fernando Nasser | 2003-05-28 14:51:00 | JDBC: LONGVARBINARY upload patch |
Previous Message | Chris Campbell | 2003-05-27 20:06:56 | Re: Adding Rendezvous support to postmaster |