Re: pervasiveness of surrogate (also called synthetic) keys

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: Scott Ribe <scott_ribe(at)elevated-dev(dot)com>, Rob Sargent <robjsargent(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: pervasiveness of surrogate (also called synthetic) keys
Date: 2011-05-02 09:50:22
Message-ID: 201105021150.23281.andres@anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Thursday, April 28, 2011 08:31:09 PM Scott Ribe wrote:
> Well, natural keys are quite obviously the way to go, when they exist. The
> problem is, they usually don't really exist. What's usually proposed as a
> natural key, will upon further investigation, either not be guaranteed
> unique, or not guaranteed to be unchanging, or both.
There is no fundamental problem with changing primary keys. Sure, there are
challenges and situations where thats annoying and problematic, but it's not
as bad as often assumed.

Andres

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message sm 2011-05-02 11:24:20 wnat ot edit pg_hba.conf file from command prompt
Previous Message Marek Więckowski 2011-05-02 07:35:33 auto-reconnect: temp schemas, sequences, transactions