| From: | Alban Hertroys <haramrae(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Sebastien Flaesch <sebastien(dot)flaesch(at)4js(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com>, Kirk Wolak <wolakk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Geoff Winkless <pgsqladmin(at)geoff(dot)dj>, pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Using CTID system column as a "temporary" primary key |
| Date: | 2023-03-29 20:15:48 |
| Message-ID: | 875C63FC-D302-4D2C-B546-FD0D957419F2@gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
> On 29 Mar 2023, at 21:11, Sebastien Flaesch <sebastien(dot)flaesch(at)4js(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Oh the use of default keyword is new to me, thanks for that.
>
> But to make PostgreSQL more Informix-compatible, zero should have been considered as well.
…No, I’m not going to be humble about this opinion… Postgres does a sane thing here.
It’s Informix that you should be complaining about. Zero is not a sane value to specify special behaviour, it could mean zero and be just as valid. By consequence, Informix probably forbids zero as a sequence value, but that is an artefact (and a limitation) of its implementation, not a feature.
The core of your problem however, is that you’re trying to get database-agnostic behaviour by relying on database-specific features. That is not going to work, you’ve just been lucky enough to get away with it until now.
There’s really only one realistic answer here: Fix your design.
Regards,
Alban Hertroys
--
There is always an exception to always.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Francisco Olarte | 2023-03-29 20:16:41 | Re: Using CTID system column as a "temporary" primary key |
| Previous Message | Vladimir Sitnikov | 2023-03-29 20:06:59 | Re: Do BRIN indexes support MIN/MAX? |