Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> Here is a patch for implementing the NEXT VALUE FOR expression. This is
> the SQL-standard conforming version of our nextval() function, and it's
> also used by Oracle, MS SQL, DB2.
BTW, several of the earlier threads complained of needing to make NEXT
a fully-reserved word in order to get this to parse without shift/reduce
conflicts. How did you avoid that? I notice that your patch puts the
new production into c_expr not func_expr_common_subexpr which would
seem like the obvious place. If that is what's making the difference
it seems rather fragile, and it would mean that NEXT VALUE FOR doesn't
act like a function in some syntactic contexts like a FROM-function.
regards, tom lane