| From: | "Jackson, DeJuan" <djackson(at)cpsgroup(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Vadim Mikheev <vadim(at)krs(dot)ru> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | RE: [HACKERS] DROPping tables with SERIALs |
| Date: | 1998-12-03 19:49:40 |
| Message-ID: | F10BB1FAF801D111829B0060971D839F54A7D8@cpsmail |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Vadim Mikheev <vadim(at)krs(dot)ru> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> No, I think it should *only* substitute for NULL. Why assume
> >> zero is special?
>
> > As I remember this is how SERIAL works in Informix.
>
> Ah. OK, if that's what they do then I agree we ought to act the same.
I hope that this wasn't to say that the SERIAL should substitute for 0
as well as NULL. That would be quite annoying. I say stick to NULL.
If all the other DB's in the world want to shoot themselves in the foot
I don't think we should follow their example.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Zeugswetter Andreas IZ5 | 1998-12-03 20:20:38 | AW: [HACKERS] DROPping tables with SERIALs |
| Previous Message | Oleg Broytmann | 1998-12-03 18:59:42 | Date/time on glibc2 linux |