Neil Conway writes: > Last I heard, we had concluded that SQL2003's notion of a sequence is > sufficiently close to ours that the differences are mostly syntax.
I concur, but do we have some sort of commitment that the rest of the SQL200x sequence machinery will be supported eventually? Otherwise, adding some irrelevant syntax variations in limited places doesn't seem fruitful. -- Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
