| From: | Marten Feldtmann <marten(at)feki(dot)toppoint(dot)de> | 
|---|---|
| To: | Chris Bitmead <chris(at)bitmead(dot)com> | 
| Cc: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee>, Chris Bitmead <chrisb(at)nimrod(dot)itg(dot)telstra(dot)com(dot)au>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> | 
| Subject: | Re: Thus spoke SQL3 (on OO) | 
| Date: | 2000-05-22 16:56:02 | 
| Message-ID: | 200005221656.SAA02300@feki.toppoint.de | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers | 
> Hannu Krosing wrote:
> 
> It's not such a big deal really. When you do an OO model you don't need
> to think about your own primary key.
> 
 Hmm, I see here more and more postings, that do say, the OID (or the
result of a SEQUENCE) is usable for a key to identify an object stored
within a database.
 Though it's true, that SEQUENCE can be used to create unique
identifiers, the function is simply a hack - nothing more for greater
OO software systems and worse than software solutions, which provide
more power and lower traffic.
 The identification of an object has to be based on a unique key and
it does not matter of which type it is.
 The foreign key is of course not useful for the oo-model, but for the
programmer, which produces the object-relational wrapper this is VERY
urgent !
 And here again: if you use SEQUENCE for the OID you use a special
feature of the database ... and that is bad.
Marten
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Marten Feldtmann | 2000-05-22 17:23:31 | Re: OO Patch | 
| Previous Message | Murad Nayal | 2000-05-22 16:42:48 | port v7.0 to SGI-IRIX-6.5.7/64 |