Re: Is a SERIAL column a "black box", or not?
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Is a SERIAL column a "black box", or not? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 21011.1146527226@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Is a SERIAL column a "black box", or not? ("Jim C. Nasby" <jnasby@pervasive.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Is a SERIAL column a "black box", or not?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
"Jim C. Nasby" <jnasby@pervasive.com> writes: > I think a big point that's being missed here is that SERIAL *is* trying > to be simple. If you need something more sophisticated or complex you > shouldn't be using SERIAL at all, you should be doing the stuff > yourself, by hand. I agree with this point in the abstract, but one important proviso is that it has to be *possible* to do it by hand. One good thing about the "SERIAL is just a macro" approach is that it keeps us honest about making sure that SERIAL isn't exploiting any weird internal behaviors that are hard to duplicate for handmade sequence defaults. We've already broken that to some extent by having the hidden dependency, and that in turn means that fairly-reasonable expectations like "pg_get_serial_sequence should find the column's associated sequence" don't work on handmade sequences. I don't want to go much further in that direction. If there's a usability problem we're trying to solve for SERIALs, we should make sure the problem gets solved for handmade sequences too. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: