Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 8:39 PM, Laurenz Albe
> wrote:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> > > Laurenz Albe writes:
> > > > The SQL standard has the expression "NEXT VALUE FOR asequence" to do
> > > > what we traditionally do with "nextval('asequence')".
> > > > This is an attempt to i
On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 8:39 PM, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Laurenz Albe writes:
>> > The SQL standard has the expression "NEXT VALUE FOR asequence" to do
>> > what we traditionally do with "nextval('asequence')".
>> > This is an attempt to implement this on top of the recently intr
Tom Lane wrote:
> Laurenz Albe writes:
> > The SQL standard has the expression "NEXT VALUE FOR asequence" to do
> > what we traditionally do with "nextval('asequence')".
> > This is an attempt to implement this on top of the recently introduced
> > NextValueExpr node.
>
> This has been proposed r
Laurenz Albe writes:
> The SQL standard has the expression "NEXT VALUE FOR asequence" to do
> what we traditionally do with "nextval('asequence')".
> This is an attempt to implement this on top of the recently introduced
> NextValueExpr node.
This has been proposed repeatedly, and rejected repeat
Laurenz Albe wrote:
> The SQL standard has the expression "NEXT VALUE FOR asequence" to do
> what we traditionally do with "nextval('asequence')".
The behavior mandated by the standard is that several invocations
of NEXT VALUE on the same sequence on the same output row
must produce the s
