Re: Re: new type proposal
От | Mark Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Re: new type proposal |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 01020616270101.00192@mark обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Re: new type proposal (Joseph Shraibman <jks@selectacast.net>) |
Список | pgsql-general |
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.
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: