Should UPDATE also allow currval()? Your logic below seems to suggest
that.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> >> Does the standard require USAGE to support currval?
>
> > currval isn't in the standard (unless I missed something), so it has
> > nothing to say one way or the other on the point.
>
> Wait, I take that back. Remember our previous discussions about this
> point: the spec's NEXT VALUE FOR construct is *not* equivalent to
> nextval, because they specify that the sequence advances just once per
> command even if the command says NEXT VALUE FOR in multiple places.
> This means that NEXT VALUE FOR is effectively both nextval and currval;
> the first one in a command does nextval and the rest do currval.
>
> Accordingly, I think it's reasonable to read the spec as saying that
> USAGE privilege encompasses both nextval and currval.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
--
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, Pennsylvania 19073
