Обсуждение: sequence creation

Right now, we allow PRIMARY to auto-create an index.

Can we have something to auto-create sequences, instead of the more
complicated CREATE SEQUENCE process.

Perhaps use the data type SERIAL to autocreate a sequence.  Should make
life easier for novices.  We are getting too many sequence questions.

--
Bruce Momjian                          |  830 Blythe Avenue
maillist@candle.pha.pa.us              |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  (610) 353-9879(w)
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  (610) 853-3000(h)

> Right now, we allow PRIMARY to auto-create an index.
> Can we have something to auto-create sequences, instead of the more
> complicated CREATE SEQUENCE process.
> Perhaps use the data type SERIAL to autocreate a sequence.  Should
> make life easier for novices.  We are getting too many sequence
> questions.

That would be possible. I'd be happier doing it for v6.5, since I'm
hoping to work on docs in the meantime. Of course, maybe it would be
easy :)

What should the syntax be exactly?

  CREATE TABLE t (s SERIAL);

or

  CREATE TABLE t (i INT DEFAULT SERIAL);

or ??

Are there alternate syntaxes from other DBs which should be considered?

                      - Tom

Thus spake Thomas G. Lockhart
> > Perhaps use the data type SERIAL to autocreate a sequence.  Should
> > make life easier for novices.  We are getting too many sequence
> > questions.
>
> That would be possible. I'd be happier doing it for v6.5, since I'm
> hoping to work on docs in the meantime. Of course, maybe it would be
> easy :)
>
> What should the syntax be exactly?
>
>   CREATE TABLE t (s SERIAL);
>
> or
>
>   CREATE TABLE t (i INT DEFAULT SERIAL);

I think the first one is simpler and, as far as I know, is more common
in existing practice.

> Are there alternate syntaxes from other DBs which should be considered?

The standard doesn't specify a serial type.  One question would be,
what is the behaviour?  Should the field always be set to the next
number on insert or should we be able to override it?  I prefer the
former but I can see that it would be a problem on dump and reload.
How do other DBs handle this?

--
D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy@{druid|vex}.net>   |  Democracy is three wolves
http://www.druid.net/darcy/                |  and a sheep voting on
+1 416 424 2871     (DoD#0082)    (eNTP)   |  what's for dinner.

> > Right now, we allow PRIMARY to auto-create an index.
> > Can we have something to auto-create sequences, instead of the more
> > complicated CREATE SEQUENCE process.
> > Perhaps use the data type SERIAL to autocreate a sequence.  Should
> > make life easier for novices.  We are getting too many sequence
> > questions.
>
> That would be possible. I'd be happier doing it for v6.5, since I'm
> hoping to work on docs in the meantime. Of course, maybe it would be
> easy :)
>
> What should the syntax be exactly?
>
>   CREATE TABLE t (s SERIAL);
>
> or
>
>   CREATE TABLE t (i INT DEFAULT SERIAL);
>
> or ??
>
> Are there alternate syntaxes from other DBs which should be considered?

Can't be that hard.  I like the first one myself, and it matches
Informix.


--
Bruce Momjian                          |  830 Blythe Avenue
maillist@candle.pha.pa.us              |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  (610) 353-9879(w)
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  (610) 853-3000(h)