From: | Thomas Munro <munro(at)ip9(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | NEXT VALUE FOR <sequence> |
Date: | 2014-10-01 16:28:46 |
Message-ID: | CADLWmXUY2oo4XObQWF3yPUSK=5uEiSV=eTyLrnu=RzteOy+3Lg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi
SQL:2003 introduced the function NEXT VALUE FOR <sequence>. Google
tells me that at least DB2, SQL Server and a few niche databases
understand it so far. As far as I can tell there is no standardised
equivalent of currval and setval (but I only have access to second
hand information about the standard, like articles and the manuals of
other products).
Here is a starter patch to add it. To avoid a shift/reduce conflict,
I had to reclassify the keyword NEXT. I admit that I don't fully
understand the consequences of that change! Please let me know if you
think this could fly.
Best regards,
Thomas Munro
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
next-value-for-sequence.patch | text/x-patch | 4.4 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jan Wieck | 2014-10-01 17:17:17 | Re: pg_receivexlog and replication slots |
Previous Message | Ilya Kosmodemiansky | 2014-10-01 16:19:05 | Dynamic LWLock tracing via pg_stat_lwlock (proof of concept) |