"John Hansen" <john@geeknet.com.au> writes:
> I'm all for it. Even more so if the 'currval(void) called before
> nextval(seq_name)' error message could be supressed by a GUC variable
> and return 0 instead.
I really have a hard time seeing the argument why that condition
does not mean "your application is broken and you should fix it".
Much less why "0" is the correct response --- it's barely conceivable
that you could persuade me that NULL is ok, but never a value that
is a valid sequence value.
regards, tom lane