Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch for sequence-renaming problems

Tom Lane wrote:
> However, we could certainly add the NEXT VALUE FOR syntax if that will
> satisfy your concern about syntax.

Since the NEXT VALUE FOR syntax has a special meaning, would it be better to 
support the oracle-style syntax sequence.nextval for now (and use the 
::regclass for this)? I am not sure how easy that is considering 
schema.sequence.nextval.

Just a thought.

Best Regards,
Michael Paesold