| From: | David Hartwig <daveh(at)insightdist(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Serial Data Type |
| Date: | 1998-09-11 20:01:57 |
| Message-ID: | 35F981B5.474AD191@insightdist.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I have a couple minor issues regarding the 6.4 implementation of the
SERIAL data type. I like the ease of using the serial data type and I
suspect it will be used frequently base on the number of inquiries over
the past months.
1. Should the sequence created by the serial type declaration, be
dropped as a result of dropping the parent table?
2. Can a declared serial column be also a primary key? If so, what
will be the side effected? Specifically, how will the unique index be
named? The ODBC driver uses the {relname}_pkey to identify the primary
key of a table. The driver must be able to identify primary keys.
Comments?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Billy G. Allie | 1998-09-12 01:12:05 | postgreSQL 6.4 patches. |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 1998-09-11 18:37:40 | Re: [HACKERS] Missing headers Windows NT port |