Re: Is a SERIAL column a "black box", or not?
От | Rod Taylor |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Is a SERIAL column a "black box", or not? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1146360362.839.104.camel@home обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Is a SERIAL column a "black box", or not? (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Is a SERIAL column a "black box", or not?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, 2006-04-29 at 17:54 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > In some recent activity on the patches list about responding to bug #2073, > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2005-11/msg00303.php > we've been discussing various possible tweaks to the behavior of dropping > or modifying a serial column. The hacks involved with SERIAL seem to me > to be getting uglier and uglier, and I think it's time to take a step > back and consider what we really want SERIAL to act like. > > It seems to me there are two basic philosophies at war here: > > 1. A serial column is a "black box" that you're not supposed to muck with > the innards of. > 2. A serial declaration is just a "macro" for setting up a sequence and a > column default expression. This was the original viewpoint and indeed is > still what it says in the documentation: > Comments, other opinions? Do both. Return SERIAL to being a macro and implement the SQL IDENTITY construct as the black box version. CREATE TABLE foo (bar integer PRIMARY KEY GENERATED BY DEFAULT AS IDENTITY); INSERT ... RETURNS needs to be implemented before SERIAL can become a black box. Until that time we will still need some knowledge of the sequence involved. --
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: