Re: Thus spoke SQL3 (on OO)

From: Marten Feldtmann <marten(at)feki(dot)toppoint(dot)de>
To: Chris Bitmead <chris(at)bitmead(dot)com>
Cc: Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee>, Chris Bitmead <chrisb(at)nimrod(dot)itg(dot)telstra(dot)com(dot)au>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Thus spoke SQL3 (on OO)
Date: 2000-05-22 16:56:02
Message-ID: 200005221656.SAA02300@feki.toppoint.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> Hannu Krosing wrote:
>
> It's not such a big deal really. When you do an OO model you don't need
> to think about your own primary key.
>

Hmm, I see here more and more postings, that do say, the OID (or the
result of a SEQUENCE) is usable for a key to identify an object stored
within a database.

Though it's true, that SEQUENCE can be used to create unique
identifiers, the function is simply a hack - nothing more for greater
OO software systems and worse than software solutions, which provide
more power and lower traffic.

The identification of an object has to be based on a unique key and
it does not matter of which type it is.

The foreign key is of course not useful for the oo-model, but for the
programmer, which produces the object-relational wrapper this is VERY
urgent !

And here again: if you use SEQUENCE for the OID you use a special
feature of the database ... and that is bad.

Marten

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Marten Feldtmann 2000-05-22 17:23:31 Re: OO Patch
Previous Message Murad Nayal 2000-05-22 16:42:48 port v7.0 to SGI-IRIX-6.5.7/64