On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 05:54:19PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> In short, I think there's a reasonably good case to be made for losing the
> hidden dependency and re-adopting the viewpoint that saying SERIAL is
> *exactly* the same as making a sequence and then making a default
> expression that uses the sequence. Nothing behind the curtain.
> Comments, other opinions?
I find it user-unfriendly that I must grant select/update to the
SERIAL, separate than from the table. I don't really see anything
friendly about treating the object as separate.
I do see the benefits with regard to simplified implementation, and
As a compromise, I could see either choice being correct. I don't
see either direction as being both user friendly and simple.
mark(at)mielke(dot)cc / markm(at)ncf(dot)ca / markm(at)nortel(dot)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 bind them...
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2006-04-30 00:58:42|
|Subject: Handling conflicting FOR UPDATE/SHARE specs|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2006-04-29 21:54:19|
|Subject: Is a SERIAL column a "black box", or not?|