| From: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Dennis Bjorklund <db(at)zigo(dot)dhs(dot)org>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: lastval() |
| Date: | 2005-05-09 01:01:18 |
| Message-ID: | 427EB65E.2080908@samurai.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
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? (e.g. additional nextval() calls in between the
nextval() you are interested in and the lastval()).
-Neil
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-05-09 01:16:09 | Re: lastval() |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2005-05-09 00:48:01 | Re: [HACKERS] read-only database |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Neil Conway | 2005-05-09 01:13:51 | Re: Added columns to pg_stat_activity |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2005-05-09 00:48:01 | Re: [HACKERS] read-only database |