Re: Re: new type proposal

Alex Pilosov wrote:
>
> On Tue, 6 Feb 2001, Dan Wilson wrote:
>
> > What would this do that would be non-standard? Does the SERIAL datatype add
> > something that is not standard? No... it just allows for an easy way to
> > implement something that is standard. The SERIAL "type" isn't really a
> > datatype, it's just a keyword that allows you to automatically specify an
> > int4 column with a related sequence and default. I don't see why the same
> > thing couldn't be done with TIMESTAMP!
> Such way the madnesssH^H^H^Hmysql lies ;)
>
> I firmly believe that people who need that feature should implement it
> themselves via triggers, and rest of us shouldn't suffer from the code
> bloat resulting to support this.

I noticed that people are ignoring the time created part of my
proposal. How can a read only field be implemented? A trigger that
causes and error if that field is updated?

--
Joseph Shraibman
jks(at)selectacast(dot)net
Increase signal to noise ratio. http://www.targabot.com