From: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Svenne Krap <svenne(at)krap(dot)dk> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Is a SERIAL column a "black box", or not? |
Date: | 2006-05-01 21:36:48 |
Message-ID: | 20060501213647.GH97354@pervasive.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 11:45:14AM +0200, Svenne Krap wrote:
> 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.
> >
> I speak more as a user than a hacker, but I do still lurk here ;)
>
> The way sequences are handled is imho one of the strongest features. The
> possiblity to query nextval is bordering on divine.
Sure, but there's no reason that would couldn't allow that with a true
black-box SERIAL, either. In fact, you can do it today if you want,
just by creating a wrapper around nextval(pg_get_serial_sequence()).
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2006-05-01 21:40:52 | Re: Is a SERIAL column a "black box", or not? |
Previous Message | Larry Rosenman | 2006-05-01 21:14:04 | Re: [HACKERS] Logging pg_autovacuum |