Re: Using CTID system column as a "temporary" primary key

On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 9:23 PM Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com>
wrote:

> On 3/29/23 12:11, Sebastien Flaesch 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.

Perhaps.

> 1) Why? Down the road to compatibility with some undetermined group of
> databases lies mayhem.
>

Sure. Unless it's opt-in, see below.

> 2) 0 can be a valid sequence value:
>

Of course. Yet, as above, if that is opt-in as specified in the `create
table` DDL somehow, then why not?

BTW, default and 0 are not the same thing. You cannot bind "default" in
place of
an integer-valued prepared-statement placeholder, in a binary mode insert.
So it is
definitely not the same thing.

So while I can accept that not implementing that particular informix
compatibility wart
is a perfectly valid position, for impl and maintenance cost, the arguments
I've read so
far can be "easily" side-stepped from a technical perspective I suspect.
FWIW.