Rod Taylor <rbt@rbt.ca> writes:
> 200N spec proposes 'NEXT VALUE FOR <sequence>'.
> Tom will shoot me if I submit that though (VALUE as a keyword again). I
> suppose one could make it a variable, and confirm it's value is VALUE?
> Anyway, once again we could extend to include:
> NEXT VALUE ON table(column)?
This is looking messier and messier. And, you are all conveniently
ignoring the fact that any change in sequence naming conventions will
break existing applications. Offering some completely new syntax
that they're supposed to use instead won't make people any happier.
I think we should stick with the existing naming convention. The only
actual problem that's been pointed out here is that an ALTER TABLE
(or COLUMN) RENAME on a serial column doesn't update the sequence name
to match. Seems to me we could fix that with less effort than any of
these solutions would take, and it wouldn't break existing applications.
regards, tom lane
