Re: Primary key data type: integer vs identity

On 4/19/19 11:32 AM, Ken Tanzer wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 11:20 AM Adrian Klaver
> <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com <mailto:adrian.klaver@aklaver.com>> wrote:
>
>     On 4/19/19 11:14 AM, Rich Shepard wrote:
>      > On Fri, 19 Apr 2019, Adrian Klaver wrote:
>      >
>      >> If it is working for you now I see no reason to switch.
>      >
>      > Adrian,
>      >
>      > It does work. I just learned about the SQL identity type and want
>     to learn
>      > when it's most appropriate to use. The databases I develop all
>     work with
>      > integers as primary keys and reading about the type didn't
>     clarify (for me)
>      > when it should be used.
>
>     Mainly for folks that want cross database SQL compliance. It is not a
>     type so much as a way of specifying an auto-increment column.
>
>
> It also sounds like it has advantages in terms of tying your sequence
> directly to the column.  If you drop a serial column, it doesn't drop
> the sequence.

A serial column will:

Thanks Adrian.  You are as usual correct.  (I had a bunch of tables created by a function that I assumed were serial, but were not.)  Identity columns still seem tidier and more manageable.  Can you tell if the function I referenced would change the ownership or not?