Re: lastval()

Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Why is that a good idea?  In a complex application it'd be awfully easy
>> to break logic that depends on such a thing.

> True, but I think it offers a usefully concise syntax for simpler
> applications. Perhaps the documentation should be amended to mention the
> potential risks?

Like, say, the sequence being deleted before the lastval call?

If I thought it was a good idea at all, I'd bother to criticize the
patch itself --- it's got some problems.

            regards, tom lane