Should UPDATE also allow currval()? Your logic below seems to suggest that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tom Lane wrote: > I wrote: > > Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: > >> Does the standard require USAGE to support currval? > > > currval isn't in the standard (unless I missed something), so it has > > nothing to say one way or the other on the point. > > Wait, I take that back. Remember our previous discussions about this > point: the spec's NEXT VALUE FOR construct is *not* equivalent to > nextval, because they specify that the sequence advances just once per > command even if the command says NEXT VALUE FOR in multiple places. > This means that NEXT VALUE FOR is effectively both nextval and currval; > the first one in a command does nextval and the rest do currval. > > Accordingly, I think it's reasonable to read the spec as saying that > USAGE privilege encompasses both nextval and currval. > > regards, tom lane > -- 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 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
