Re: [HACKERS] New setval() call

2001-02-12 Thread Philip Warner
At 18:34 10/02/01 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >Can you give me a few lines to put in sequence.c? There isn't even >anything in there! > I've now put comments on setval, setval_is_called and do_setval. 3 for the price of one. Ph

Re: [HACKERS] New setval() call

2001-02-10 Thread Bruce Momjian
> At 12:23 10/02/01 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >I am inclinded to remove this open item: > > > > New SQL function setval(seq,val,bool) for use in pg_dump (Philip) > > > >The use of the 3rd parameter, 'iscalled', while used by pg_dump, is not > >of general use, so we probably don't need to d

Re: [HACKERS] New setval() call

2001-02-10 Thread Philip Warner
At 12:23 10/02/01 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: >I am inclinded to remove this open item: > > New SQL function setval(seq,val,bool) for use in pg_dump (Philip) > >The use of the 3rd parameter, 'iscalled', while used by pg_dump, is not >of general use, so we probably don't need to document it.

[HACKERS] New setval() call

2001-02-10 Thread Bruce Momjian
I am inclinded to remove this open item: New SQL function setval(seq,val,bool) for use in pg_dump (Philip) The use of the 3rd parameter, 'iscalled', while used by pg_dump, is not of general use, so we probably don't need to document it. Is this valid? Info on the new param is: ---