Tom Lane wrote: > 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.
What I did was to read through the GRANT and SEQUENCE sections, then I dumped it to text and did a grep for 'grant' or perm* appearing on the same line as sequence, and came up with nothing. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
