Marko Kreen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But my question is rather - is there any scenario where setval() should
> go with nextval()?
> It seems that their pairing is an accident and should be fixed.
I think the original argument for the current design was that with
enough nextval's you can duplicate the effect of a setval. This is only
strictly true if the sequence is CYCLE mode, and even then it'd take a
whole lot of patience to wrap an int8 sequence around ... but the
distinction between them is not so large as you make it out to be.
In any case I think we are wasting our time discussing it, and instead
should be looking through the SQL2003 spec to see what it requires.
Bruce couldn't find anything in it about this but I can't believe the
info isn't there somewhere.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
