| From: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams(at)oryx(dot)com>, db(at)zigo(dot)dhs(dot)org, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: lastval() |
| Date: | 2005-06-06 05:27:13 |
| Message-ID: | 42A3DEB1.8090702@samurai.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane wrote:
> I agree with that --- consider that you couldn't actually promise that
> the sequence hadn't been dropped by the time the answer is returned,
> anyway, unless you take out a lock on the sequence first. Which doesn't
> seem like a behavior that is wanted here.
The only objection I can see is that it arguably doesn't obey sequence
permissions: you need SELECT on a sequence to see its currval(), whereas
lastval() would return the same information without an equivalent
permission check.
-Neil
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-06-06 05:33:50 | Re: lastval() |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-06-06 05:23:25 | Re: unsafe use of hash_search(... HASH_ENTER ...) |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-06-06 05:33:50 | Re: lastval() |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-06-06 05:05:55 | Re: lastval() |