Tom Lane wrote:
> Marko Kreen <markokr@gmail.com> writes:
> > But my question is rather - is there any scenario where setval() should
> > go with nextval()?
>
> > It seems that their pairing is an accident and should be fixed.
>
> I think the original argument for the current design was that with
> enough nextval's you can duplicate the effect of a setval. This is only
> strictly true if the sequence is CYCLE mode, and even then it'd take a
> whole lot of patience to wrap an int8 sequence around ... but the
> distinction between them is not so large as you make it out to be.
>
> In any case I think we are wasting our time discussing it, and instead
> should be looking through the SQL2003 spec to see what it requires.
> Bruce couldn't find anything in it about this but I can't believe the
> info isn't there somewhere.
What I did was to read through the GRANT and SEQUENCE sections, then I
dumped it to text and did a grep for 'grant' or perm* appearing on the
same line as sequence, and came up with nothing.
--
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