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

Re: pervasiveness of surrogate (also called synthetic) keys

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: Scott Ribe <scott_ribe(at)elevated-dev(dot)com>, Rob Sargent <robjsargent(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: pervasiveness of surrogate (also called synthetic) keys
Date: 2011-05-02 09:50:22
Message-ID: 201105021150.23281.andres@anarazel.de (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general
On Thursday, April 28, 2011 08:31:09 PM Scott Ribe wrote:
> Well, natural keys are quite obviously the way to go, when they exist. The
> problem is, they usually don't really exist. What's usually proposed as a
> natural key, will upon further investigation, either not be guaranteed
> unique, or not guaranteed to be unchanging, or both.
There is no fundamental problem with changing primary keys. Sure, there are 
challenges and situations where thats annoying and problematic, but it's not 
as bad as often assumed.

Andres

In response to

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: smDate: 2011-05-02 11:24:20
Subject: wnat ot edit pg_hba.conf file from command prompt
Previous:From: Marek WięckowskiDate: 2011-05-02 07:35:33
Subject: auto-reconnect: temp schemas, sequences, transactions

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