Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch for sequence-renaming problems - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

Michael Paesold wrote:
> 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.

Yes, that is the direction I thought we were going.

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610)
359-1001+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073