| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "John Hansen" <john(at)geeknet(dot)com(dot)au> |
| Cc: | "Neil Conway" <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, "Dennis Bjorklund" <db(at)zigo(dot)dhs(dot)org>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: lastval() |
| Date: | 2005-05-11 05:41:09 |
| Message-ID: | 610.1115790069@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
"John Hansen" <john(at)geeknet(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> I'm all for it. Even more so if the 'currval(void) called before
> nextval(seq_name)' error message could be supressed by a GUC variable
> and return 0 instead.
I really have a hard time seeing the argument why that condition
does not mean "your application is broken and you should fix it".
Much less why "0" is the correct response --- it's barely conceivable
that you could persuade me that NULL is ok, but never a value that
is a valid sequence value.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | John Hansen | 2005-05-11 07:03:53 | Re: lastval() |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-05-11 05:28:16 | Re: lastval() |