On 27 Nov 2002 11:51:13 -0500, Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com> wrote:
>Somewhat -- SQL2003 defines sequence generators that are pretty much
>identical in functionality to PostgreSQL's sequences, although the
>syntax is a bit different. I submitted a patch for 7.4 that adjusts the
>CREATE SEQUENCE grammar to match SQL2003's CREATE SEQUENCE a little more
>closely, but there's a bunch more work that can be done, if we want to
>be fully SQL-compliant.
Neil, I'm not advocating a change. As long as Postgres sequences
don't look like SQL2003 sequence generators there is no problem, if
they behave differently. OTOH if we have standard syntax, I'd prefer
to have standard semantics, too. Maybe we can have classic Postgres
syntax (nextval('...')) with classic Postgres behaviour and SQL2003
syntax (NEXT VALUE FOR ...) with SQL2003 behaviour side by side?
CURRENT_TIMESTAMP is another issue, because it looks like standard
SQL, but ...
ServusManfred