From: | mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc |
---|---|
To: | Magnus Hagander <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Is a SERIAL column a "black box", or not? |
Date: | 2006-04-30 13:21:30 |
Message-ID: | 20060430132130.GB15373@mark.mielke.cc |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 11:06:05AM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> If it's not obvious yet :-P, I'd be in favour of having SERIAL as
> black-box as possible, and then just use manual CREATE SEQUENCE and
> DEFAULT nextval() for when you need a more advanced case. But that's as
> seen from a user perspective, without regard for backend complexity.
That's where I sit as well.
SERIAL as a macro has no value to me. I'd rather write it out in full,
and make it obvious to the caller, what I'm doing. This way, I get to
choose the sequence name instead of having it generated for me, and
the GRANT expression makes more sense.
If SERIAL generated an 'anonymous' SEQUENCE, that was a real black
box, that had the same permissions as the table, I'd be tempted to use
it again.
I also see the db_dump example as proving more that the box isn't
black enough, than proving that the black box approach is wrong.
Cheers,
mark
--
mark(at)mielke(dot)cc / markm(at)ncf(dot)ca / markm(at)nortel(dot)com __________________________
. . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ |
| | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
and in the darkness bind them...
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2006-04-30 13:54:48 | Re: Constraint Exclusion + Joins? |
Previous Message | mark | 2006-04-30 13:10:28 | Re: Is a SERIAL column a "black box", or not? |