From: | Tony Caduto <tony_caduto(at)amsoftwaredesign(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Serial / auto increment data type |
Date: | 2005-04-27 21:09:55 |
Message-ID: | 426FFFA3.9030204@amsoftwaredesign.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Yes, that is the way to do it.
I migrated several large Access DB to postgres and most of the tables that where done by the
non developers didn't have a primary key defined, so the easiest way was just to add a new field to every table and make it a serial.
I believe you would have to do this even if you were using MS SQL server as the backend.
> Here is my question. Would I be wise to define each and ever table with
> a serial id, so that I may always be guaranteed something uniqe, to
> satisfy Access. It seems to me like no harm can be done, since if you
> dont need the serial id, you dont need it, but it is always there if you
> do need it, and it is harder to add such a field down the line, after
> the fact.
>
> Thanks!
--
Tony Caduto
AM Software Design
Home of PG Lightning Admin for Postgresql 8.x
http://www.amsoftwaredesign.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Typing80wpm | 2005-04-27 21:27:25 | Postgresql, Windows, Peer-2-Peer network |
Previous Message | Sean Davis | 2005-04-27 21:05:20 | Re: populating a table via the COPY command using C code. |