From: | Bryan Basham <basham(at)bhi(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | vadim(at)sable(dot)krasnoyarsk(dot)su, karl(at)mcs(dot)net |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org, pgsql-questions(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [QUESTIONS] Arrays (inserting and removing) |
Date: | 1998-01-15 18:39:16 |
Message-ID: | 199801151839.LAA18971@sabrina.secure.bhi.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> OIDs are a bastardization of the relational model. If you have to keep
> them, then do so, but their use should be SEVERELY discouraged.
Explain yourself, please.
In my opinion, I view the OID in the same way as I view the SERIAL datatype
in Informix. It is usually a primary key field in a table. On an insert,
the DBMS will increment the current serial-maximum (for that table) and insert
the new serial value into that field; thus creating a unique identifier.
There are differences between OID and SERIAL. The main difference is that
the OID field (always called 'oid') is always present whereas a DB designer
explicitly creates 'id' fields (of SERIAL type). Thus, postgresql treats
every table as an object (which is not always the case).
Is the SERIAL datatype part of the SQL-92 standard? Does PostgreSQL plan
to support SERIAL in the future. This would be an acceptable replacement
for the OID.
-Bryan Basham
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | The Hermit Hacker | 1998-01-15 18:42:51 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [QUESTIONS] Arrays (inserting and removing) |
Previous Message | D'Arcy J.M. Cain | 1998-01-15 18:37:43 | Re: [HACKERS] Python...? |