Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> The more I think about it, the more I think that two sets of function >> names might not be such an awful idea. next_value(), curr_value(), and >> set_value() seem like they'd work well enough. Then we'd just say that >> nextval and friends are deprecated except when you need late binding, >> and we'd be done.
> I don't like the val/value distinction (the added "ue" means what?). > Perhaps next_seq/curr_seq/set_seq would work more cleanly. I never > liked that the function names had no reference to "seq"uence in them. That doesn't really respond to the "means what?" question --- which of "nextval" and "next_seq" is the early binding form, and how do you remember? For that matter, how do you even remember that they're related? Still, I have no strong objection to those names, and am happy to go with them if that will resolve the discussion. > Didn't next_val() come from Oracle? Does it make sense to make new > non-Oracle compatible commands for this, especially since Oracle > probably does early binding? What would make more sense perhaps would > be for next_val to do early binding, and a new function do late binding, > perhaps next_val_str(). We already have the function to do late binding, namely nextval(text). I see no percentage in inventing some random new name for a function that's been there forever --- unless the new name adheres to some standard, which these don't. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend