Re: Why doesn't the SERIAL data type automatically have a

Richard Huxton wrote:
> Jim C. Nasby wrote:
>>>>> Is there some reason why the SERIAL data type doesn't
>>>>> automatically have a UNIQUE CONSTRAINT.
>>>>
>>>> It used to, and then we decoupled it.
> [snip]
>> Arguably it would have been better to make the default case add either
>> UNIQUE or PRIMARY KEY with a way to over-ride.
>
> Arguably SERIAL shouldn't be a type at all since it's nothing to do
> with defining a set of values. If you were being clean about it you'd
> have to have something like "mycol INTEGER SERIAL UNIQUE", then wire
> SERIAL to a generator function for the type in question.
>
>> If newbies are getting burned maybe it would be useful to toss a NOTICE
>> or maybe even WARNING when a serial is created without a unique
>> constraint of some kind?
>
> Don't forget the NOT NULL too. Perhaps simpler to have a PGIDENT
> pseudo-type that implies "UNIQUE NOT NULL" and then explain the
> difference in the docs.
>
> --
> Richard Huxton
> Archonet Ltd
>
I like Richard's idea. That seems to be the best way to go.

Ferindo
Sleekcollar