From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
Cc: | Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg(at)aon(dot)at>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: next value expression |
Date: | 2002-11-27 17:24:14 |
Message-ID: | 18666.1038417854@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, 2002-11-27 at 10:29, Manfred Koizar wrote:
>> By accident I stumbled across the following paragraph in the August
>> 2002 draft of SQL 2003:
>>
>> If there are multiple instances of <next value expression>s
>> specifying the same sequence generator within a single
>> SQL-statement, all those instances return the same value for a
>> given row processed by that SQL-statement.
>>
>> Is this of any relevance to PG's nextval()?
> Somewhat -- SQL2003 defines sequence generators that are pretty much
> identical in functionality to PostgreSQL's sequences, although the
> syntax is a bit different.
I would think his point is that the above paragraph specifies behavior
that is very definitely NOT like Postgres'.
> I submitted a patch for 7.4 that adjusts the
> CREATE SEQUENCE grammar to match SQL2003's CREATE SEQUENCE a little more
> closely,
Did we apply it? I'm inclined not to, until we nail down the semantic
implications a little more. Conforming to the spec on syntax when we
don't on semantics strikes me as a bad idea.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Neil Conway | 2002-11-27 18:20:19 | Re: next value expression |
Previous Message | Thomas A. Lowery | 2002-11-27 17:20:00 | Re: Interface update for 7.3 |