| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Dennis Bjorklund <db(at)zigo(dot)dhs(dot)org>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: lastval() |
| Date: | 2005-05-09 01:16:09 |
| Message-ID: | 15163.1115601369@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Why is that a good idea? In a complex application it'd be awfully easy
>> to break logic that depends on such a thing.
> True, but I think it offers a usefully concise syntax for simpler
> applications. Perhaps the documentation should be amended to mention the
> potential risks?
Like, say, the sequence being deleted before the lastval call?
If I thought it was a good idea at all, I'd bother to criticize the
patch itself --- it's got some problems.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Neil Conway | 2005-05-09 02:19:37 | Re: test bed |
| Previous Message | Neil Conway | 2005-05-09 01:01:18 | Re: lastval() |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-05-09 01:26:53 | Re: Added columns to pg_stat_activity |
| Previous Message | Neil Conway | 2005-05-09 01:13:51 | Re: Added columns to pg_stat_activity |