| From: | Richard Broersma <richard(dot)broersma(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Yan Cheng Cheok <yccheok(at)yahoo(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Is there any different for foreign key to be serial instead of integer |
| Date: | 2010-01-07 04:39:57 |
| Message-ID: | 396486431001062039x5b82370do1b13273a31604ce1@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 8:36 PM, Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>. A
>> serial foreign key would be nonsensical since foreign keys should be
>> be generating their own values.
>
> Pretty sure the OP was talking about referencing a bigserial from a
> foreign key, which makes perfect sense for certain types of mappings.
> FKs don't generate their own values, they reference values in a PK or
> unique field somewhere else really.
Good catch. :) I've been sticking my foot in my mouth all day with
typos like this.
--
Regards,
Richard Broersma Jr.
Visit the Los Angeles PostgreSQL Users Group (LAPUG)
http://pugs.postgresql.org/lapug
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Smith | 2010-01-07 04:49:35 | Re: PostgreSQL Write Performance |
| Previous Message | Scott Marlowe | 2010-01-07 04:36:39 | Re: Is there any different for foreign key to be serial instead of integer |