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
