On Mon, 8 Sep 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> I don't know how you could have an application that doesn't know if it
> has issued a nextval() in the current connection. Unless you can explain
> that, we have no intention of playing tricks with currval() for
> connection pooling.
Actually, I would think the very act of using connection pooling would
ensure that applications may well not know whether or not a nextval had
been called. In other words, how is an application supposed to know if
the previous bit of code that used this connection issued a nextval() when
you're connection pooling and any piece of code could have run before you.
On the other hand, using currval as a test to see if a value has been used
is probably not the best way of doing things either. I'd imagine some
kind of static or session var would be better suited to that task.