Re: [HACKERS] Primary key requires SERIAL

At 10:26 PM 11/18/99 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>We currently only allow the words PRIMARY KEY on a SERIAL column. Is
>there a reason we don't allow PRIMARY KEY on an integer field? Seems it
>should be allowed.

Presumably the only reason to disallow this is to make life difficult
for those of us who want to port Oracle-based applications.

Given that Oracle represents a huge slice of the established market,
and given that in the past Postgres has been an "Oracle-friendly" db in
terms of dialectical support (nextval and currval on sequences being
germane to the subject at hand) one can only presume that the Postgres
development group wants to make porting of Oracle-ish systems difficult.

Why?

"Currently" must mean the 7.0-in-work because 6.5.1 supports primary
key on integer just fine.

Why support "serial" and not support "primary key on integer" when
Oracle rules the roost, not Sybase?

If your statement's true, this is a horrible shift in direction for
the PostgreSQL project.

- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com>
Nature photos, on-line guides, Pacific Northwest
Rare Bird Alert Service and other goodies at
http://donb.photo.net.