Neil Conway writes:
> Last I heard, we had concluded that SQL2003's notion of a sequence is
> sufficiently close to ours that the differences are mostly syntax.
I concur, but do we have some sort of commitment that the rest of
the SQL200x sequence machinery will be supported eventually? Otherwise,
adding some irrelevant syntax variations in limited places doesn't seem
fruitful.
--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net