Thomas Munro <thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com> writes: > On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> We discussed this before and concluded that NEXT VALUE FOR is in fact >> *not* an exact semantic equivalent of nextval(): >> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/14790.1083955136%40sss.pgh.pa.us
> And also again 10 years later when I proposed it :-) > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CADLWmXUY2oo4XObQWF3yPUSK%3D5uEiSV%3DeTyLrnu%3DRzteOy%2B3Lg%40mail.gmail.com And that links to yet another thread, from 2002 ;-) The 2004 thread does contain some speculation about how to implement the spec's semantics. It seems like the first problem is nailing down what is meant by "once per row", particularly in cases with nested execution contexts. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
