From: | Jeff Daugherty <jdaugherty(at)greatbridge(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | will trillich <will(at)serensoft(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: more-than-one-SERIAL column per table |
Date: | 2001-05-09 19:03:47 |
Message-ID: | 3AF99493.4050805@greatbridge.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
I see no reason why a second SERIAL column would be needed. As in the
example for creating tbl_c, when you have a SERIAL as a primary key,
the foreign keys that reference it should be int4 not SERIAL.
jeff
Jeff Daugherty
Database Systems Engineer
Great Bridge LLC
will trillich wrote:
> On Sun, May 06, 2001 at 02:59:31AM +0200, Morten Primdahl wrote:
>
>>> \d tbl_c_id_seq
>>>
>>> if it is not there, you can create it yourself
>>
>> Thanks, the sequence was not there. Just puzzled me that
>> when creating tbl_c, I get:
>>
>> test=# CREATE TABLE tbl_c
>> (id SERIAL PRIMARY KEY,
>> data VARCHAR(50),
>> a SERIAL CONSTRAINT a_ref REFERENCES tbl_a(id),
>> b SERIAL CONSTRAINT b_ref REFERENCES tbl_b(id)
>> );
>
>
> is there any paradigm wherein TWO serial values for one table
> might possible be useful? (since serial is really "int default
> nextval('sequence_seq')" how can the second serial be anything
> but redundant?)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | root | 2001-05-09 19:07:20 | COPY INTO and the SERIAL data type |
Previous Message | Joel Burton | 2001-05-09 18:58:11 | Re: more-than-one-SERIAL column per table |