Rod Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'd like ALTER SEQUENCE to be transaction safe.
I think that's inherently impossible without breaking the existing
behavior of setval/nextval, which is something we will not accept.
ALTER SEQUENCE would be better thought of as a form of setval with
even mor
Rod Taylor kirjutas T, 10.12.2002 kell 01:49:
> Below is a short list of TODOs on sequences I wish to tackle over the
> next week.
...
> Ok, this is where it gets confusing. Right now setval() is implemented
> in such a manner that it cannot be rolled back (see SETVAL NOTE below),
> but I'd like A
Below is a short list of TODOs on sequences I wish to tackle over the
next week.
CREATE SEQUENCE:
- Addition of NO MAXVALUE and NO MINVALUE options, which use the system
implementation settings -- for SQL2002 compliance, and makes ALTER
SEQUENCE slightly easier.
ALTER SEQUENCE:
- Supports RESTAR
