From: | Don Baccus <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | Jeroen van Vianen <jeroen(at)design(dot)nl>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Notation for nextval() (was Re: Several small patches) |
Date: | 1999-12-17 02:38:46 |
Message-ID: | 3.0.1.32.19991216183846.010b4940@mail.pacifier.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
At 08:35 PM 12/16/99 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>presumably I don't want a join against the sequence foo, but I am not
>sure that this will be clear either to a human reader or to the machine.
I haven't personally heard of any human readers of Oracle SQL getting
confused by this notation... :)
On the other hand, I think nextval(foo) makes more sense, it's a
function operating on the sequence foo, not part of foo. nextval('foo')
is just bizarre, though it's clear and I can't say I worry much about
it now that I'm used to it!
In the porting-from-Oracle project I'm working on, we're just
regsub'ing all foo.nextval's into nextval('foo').
- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com>
Nature photos, on-line guides, Pacific Northwest
Rare Bird Alert Service and other goodies at
http://donb.photo.net.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Lamar Owen | 1999-12-17 02:56:22 | Re: [HACKERS] ordering RH6.1 |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 1999-12-17 02:04:25 | Re: [HACKERS] ordering RH6.1 |