Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Is a SERIAL column a "black box", or not?

From: mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: Is a SERIAL column a "black box", or not?
Date: 2006-04-29 23:41:15
Message-ID: 20060429234114.GA26735@mark.mielke.cc (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
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
flexibility.

As a compromise, I could see either choice being correct. I don't
see either direction as being both user friendly and simple.

Cheers,
mark

-- 
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...

                           http://mark.mielke.cc/


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2006-04-30 00:58:42
Subject: Handling conflicting FOR UPDATE/SHARE specs
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2006-04-29 21:54:19
Subject: Is a SERIAL column a "black box", or not?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group