Re: Roadmap for FE/BE protocol redesign
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Cc: Dave Cramer <dave@fastcrypt.com>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2003-03-21T16:11:15Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: > What I was wondering is if we could create a currval() call that takes > no arguments, and returns the most recent sequence id assigned. Why? That's still an extra query that the client has to issue, and currval in that form would be an amazingly fragile programming tool. (What if some trigger causes an autoincrement on some other sequence than the one you are thinking about?) I liked the INSERT ... RETURNING and UPDATE ... RETURNING syntax extensions that Philip Warner (IIRC) proposed awhile back. Those would get the job done much more flexibly than anything else that's been suggested. That's why I think it's a language problem and not a protocol problem. regards, tom lane