Re: Re: new type proposal

On Tue, 6 Feb 2001, Dan Wilson wrote:

> What would this do that would be non-standard? Does the SERIAL datatype add
> something that is not standard? No... it just allows for an easy way to
> implement something that is standard. The SERIAL "type" isn't really a
> datatype, it's just a keyword that allows you to automatically specify an
> int4 column with a related sequence and default. I don't see why the same
> thing couldn't be done with TIMESTAMP!
Such way the madnesssH^H^H^Hmysql lies ;)

I firmly believe that people who need that feature should implement it
themselves via triggers, and rest of us shouldn't suffer from the code
bloat resulting to support this.

SERIAL datatype is different, as something like that is supported by every
RDBMS, and pretty much everyone takes [or can take] a use of that...

> I'm not saying to create an actual datatype that is called TIMESTAMP or
> LAST_MODIFIED, just use it in a create script. It would then be implemented
> with the DATE datatype combined with triggers.
>
> Makes perfect sense to me!
>
> -Dan
>
> BTW: I'm completely awake and I build applications specifically so I don't
> have to do things by hand (ie. so I can be "lazy" or more efficient,
> whichever you prefer).
>
>