Re: Is a SERIAL column a "black box", or not?
От | mark@mark.mielke.cc |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Is a SERIAL column a "black box", or not? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20060501145017.GA30224@mark.mielke.cc обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Is a SERIAL column a "black box", or not? (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Is a SERIAL column a "black box", or not?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, May 01, 2006 at 10:29:12AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > A cheesy compromise would be to switch userid for default-evaluation > only if the expression contains any volatile functions. I find this > idea pretty ugly, but it would allow us to still behave per-spec > for CURRENT_USER while getting the results we want for nextval(). > (current_user() is marked "stable".) If the user is specifying the default expression, they can specify SECURITY DEFINER themselves, yes? So it's really only the default definition of 'SERIAL' columns for new tables. SERIAL isn't per-spec, yes? So it could change in 8.2 without problem? Cheers, mark -- mark@mielke.cc / markm@ncf.ca / markm@nortel.com __________________________ . . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder |\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ | | | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all and in the darkness bindthem... http://mark.mielke.cc/
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: