From: | Tino Wildenhain <tino(at)wildenhain(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Zoltan Boszormenyi <zboszor(at)dunaweb(dot)hu> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: SERIAL type feature request |
Date: | 2005-12-03 21:37:34 |
Message-ID: | 1133645854.5734.72.camel@Andrea.peacock.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Am Samstag, den 03.12.2005, 22:23 +0100 schrieb Zoltan Boszormenyi:
> Hi!
>
> I would like to add an entry to PostgreSQL 8.2 TODO:
> - Extend SERIAL to a full-featured auto-incrementer type.
>
> To achieve this, the following three requirements should be fulfilled:
>
> 1. The statement parser should be able to handle this:
>
> create table x (
> id serial(N),
> ...
> );
>
> and behind the scenes this would translate into the "create sequence ...
> start N"
> before creating the table.
why isnt N max_id? Or increment?
Sounds inconsistent. -1 on this.
> 2. Upon INSERTing to a serial column, explicitly given 0 value or
> 'default' keyword
> or omitted field (implicit default) should be interchangeable.
default and omit are these. 0 would be an error. -1 on this too.
> 3. When a serial field value is given in an INSERT or UPDATE statement
> and the value is larger the the current value of the sequence then the
> sequence
> should be modified accordingly.
sideeffects, raceconditions. -1 on this.
> This is the way Informix handles its serial type, although it doesn't seem
> to have a visible sequence bound to the serial column.
Sounds like this informix is seriously broken ;)
> Is it feasible in the 8.2 timeframe?
I hope not ;)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jochem van Dieten | 2005-12-03 21:45:14 | Re: Reducing relation locking overhead |
Previous Message | Bruno Wolff III | 2005-12-03 21:30:00 | Re: Reduce NUMERIC size by 2 bytes, reduce max length to 508 digits |