Re: Better alternative for Primary Key then serial??

Alvaro Herrera-3 wrote:
>
> Just do not update the ID -- what use do you have for that
> anyway? If you want to prevent it, you can put a trigger to the column,
> but IMHO it would be a waste of your time and machine resources.
>

I have absolutely no use to update the ID. I'm not sure why anyone ever
would, and I guess I was a little shocked to find that PostGres even allows
it.

In MSSQL, an identity() is used instead of a serial, and once in place that
sucker is pretty much set in stone without a little know-how (it won't
happen by accident). I'm definitely not here for a "my way is better because
thats what I'm familiar with" discussion, just to get a feel of why its done
that way, if I'm doing anything wrong, or if there is an accepted way to
lock it down.
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Better-alternative-for-Primary-Key-then-serial---tp14289409p14303222.html
Sent from the PostgreSQL - general mailing list archive at Nabble.com.