On 27 Nov 2002 11:51:13 -0500, Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Somewhat -- SQL2003 defines sequence generators that are pretty much
>identical in functionality to PostgreSQL's sequences, although the
>syntax is a bit different. I submitted a patch for 7.4 that adjusts the
>CREATE SEQUENCE g
Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There's already a need to reform the way in which the next value of a
> sequence is produced (nextval() makes it difficult to get the dependancy
> information right); would it be a good idea to change it to be
> completely SQL compatible at the same time?
On Wed, 2002-11-27 at 12:24, Tom Lane wrote:
> I would think his point is that the above paragraph specifies behavior
> that is very definitely NOT like Postgres'.
Ah, I see now -- yeah, I misunderstood.
> > I submitted a patch for 7.4 that adjusts the
> > CREATE SEQUENCE grammar to match SQL2003
Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 2002-11-27 at 10:29, Manfred Koizar wrote:
>> By accident I stumbled across the following paragraph in the August
>> 2002 draft of SQL 2003:
>>
>> If there are multiple instances of s
>> specifying the same sequence generator within a single
>> SQL
On Wed, 2002-11-27 at 10:29, Manfred Koizar wrote:
> By accident I stumbled across the following paragraph in the August
> 2002 draft of SQL 2003:
>
> If there are multiple instances of s
> specifying the same sequence generator within a single
> SQL-statement, all those instance
