Re: Odd behavior with 'currval'

From: "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Steven Hirsch <snhirsch(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "pgsql-generallists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Odd behavior with 'currval'
Date: 2018-02-08 19:55:20
Message-ID: CAKFQuwaY1N6hR258U8z0qd52RR5TJvg+aGc2rfgG_OAAaQpi0Q@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 12:54 PM, David G. Johnston <
david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> The only 'currval' procedure is the one defined at installation (in
>> public).
>>
>
​So, the installed version of currval would be defined in "pg_catalog", not
"public" ...

David J.
​

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Igal @ Lucee.org 2018-02-08 20:24:54 DOW is 0-based?
Previous Message David G. Johnston 2018-02-08 19:54:28 Re: Odd behavior with 'currval'