Michael Paesold wrote:
> 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.
Yes, that is the direction I thought we were going.
-- 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,
Pennsylvania19073