Re: FW: Surrogate keys (Was: enums)

From: Thomas Hallgren <thomas(at)tada(dot)se>
To: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Cc: "Psql_General (E-mail)" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: FW: Surrogate keys (Was: enums)
Date: 2006-01-19 17:51:01
Message-ID: 43CFD185.4020201@tada.se
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers

Josh Berkus wrote:
> Why? I don't find this statement to be self-evident. Why would we have ON
> UPDATE CASCADE if keys didn't change sometimes?
>
Many times you will have references to a specific row from somewhere outside of your
database. Perhaps you have a federation of web services that collaborate or other arbitrary
URL's that contain the key.

It might be harder to create remote row sets, middle tier caches, and other similar
constructs if you cannot trust that the primary key is immutable. Such mechanisms often
trust that the primary key can be used to refetch the data and that it has been deleted if
it's no longer found.

> Anyway, my opinion on this, in detail, will be on the ITToolBox blog. You can
> argue with me there.
>
That will be interesting reading. I didn't find it (yet). Can you please post an URL here?

Regards,
Thomas Hallgren

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Josh Berkus 2006-01-19 18:01:57 Re: FW: Surrogate keys (Was: enums)
Previous Message Tino Wildenhain 2006-01-19 17:49:35 Re: create plperlu langage fails

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Josh Berkus 2006-01-19 18:01:57 Re: FW: Surrogate keys (Was: enums)
Previous Message Jim C. Nasby 2006-01-19 17:42:31 Re: Surrogate keys (Was: enums)