Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch for sequence-renaming problems

Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> Michael Paesold wrote:
>> 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.

We are further away than ever from being able to support that:

regression=# select seq.nextval;
ERROR:  missing FROM-clause entry for table "seq"

Given that that proposal has been on the TODO list for years, and no one
has ever offered any workable way to implement it, I think waiting until
a way appears is equivalent to saying none of this will ever get fixed.
I'm not prepared to accept "fix it in 8.2" unless you can present an
implementation plan that can fix it in 8.2, and "use the Oracle syntax"
isn't a plan.

Moreover, providing a regclass-based nextval function doesn't foreclose
us from supporting the Oracle syntax if someone does have a bright idea
about it.
        regards, tom lane