Re: Primary keys and composite unique keys(basic question)

From: Rob Sargent <robjsargent(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Primary keys and composite unique keys(basic question)
Date: 2021-04-07 18:16:41
Message-ID: cdcda38e-0491-70ce-783f-9515fab7d22c@gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On 4/7/21 11:59 AM, Ron wrote:
> On 4/7/21 11:35 AM, Rob Sargent wrote:
>>
>>> On Apr 7, 2021, at 10:17 AM, Ron <ronljohnsonjr(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>>
>>>  On 4/5/21 9:37 PM, Rob Sargent wrote:
>>>>> It's a small thing, but UUIDs are absolutely not memorizable by
>>>>> humans; they have zero semantic value.  Sequential numeric identifiers
>>>>> are generally easier to transpose and the value gives some clues to
>>>>> its age (of course, in security contexts this can be a downside).
>>>>>
>>>> I take the above as a definite plus.  Spent too much of my life
>>>> correcting others’ use of “remembered” id’s that just happened to
>>>> perfectly match the wrong thing.
>>>
>>> People seem to have stopped appending check digits to identifiers
>>> about 20 years ago, and I'm not sure why.
>>>
>> No the problem is “start from one”. User has item/I’d 10875 in hand
>> and types in 10785 which of course in a sequence supplied ID steam is
>> perfectly valid and wrong.  Really hard to track down.
>
> That's my point.  Adding a check digit (turning 10875 into 108753)
> would have caught that, since 107853 does not match 107854 (which is
> 10785 with a check digit added).
Well you forget that 108753 is also a number in the series from 1 to
maxint.   Maybe you're on to something though: a checksum dispensing
sequence!

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ron 2021-04-07 18:35:15 Re: Primary keys and composite unique keys(basic question)
Previous Message Ron 2021-04-07 17:59:22 Re: Primary keys and composite unique keys(basic question)