Re: Re: new type proposal

On Tuesday 06 February 2001 16:09, Joseph Shraibman wrote:
> Alex Pilosov wrote:
> > On Tue, 6 Feb 2001, Dan Wilson wrote:
> > > What would this do that would be non-standard?  Does the SERIAL
> > > datatype add something that is not standard?  No... it just allows for
> > > an easy way to implement something that is standard.  The SERIAL "type"
> > > isn't really a datatype, it's just a keyword that allows you to
> > > automatically specify an int4 column with a related sequence and
> > > default.  I don't see why the same thing couldn't be done with
> > > TIMESTAMP!
> >
> > Such way the madnesssH^H^H^Hmysql lies ;)
> >
> > I firmly believe that people who need that feature should implement it
> > themselves via triggers, and rest of us shouldn't suffer from the code
> > bloat resulting to support this.
>
> I noticed that people are ignoring the time created part of my
> proposal.  How can a read only field be implemented?  A trigger that
> causes and error if that field is updated?

Just don't write to the field.