Re: [HACKERS] Notation for nextval() (was Re: Several small patches)

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.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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