Tom Lane wrote:
> However, we could certainly add the NEXT VALUE FOR syntax if that will
> satisfy your concern about syntax.
Since the NEXT VALUE FOR syntax has a special meaning, would it be better to
support the oracle-style syntax sequence.nextval for now (and use the
::regclass for this)? I am not sure how easy that is considering
schema.sequence.nextval.
Just a thought.
Best Regards,
Michael Paesold
