| From: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au>, Rob Sargent <robjsargent(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pervasiveness of surrogate (also called synthetic) keys |
| Date: | 2011-05-04 20:48:06 |
| Message-ID: | BANLkTimJown4tYAQR=DZdscgbMG97dMOfg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 8:03 PM, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> With a uniqueness constraint in this situation, the unexpected data--row
> with a non unique MAC--will be rejected and possibly lost when the insertion
> happens. You say that's a good thing, plenty of people will say that's the
> worst possible thing that can happen.
But remember the original discussion is on using these are PK/FK.
That's where things get really ugly. I can change my data model to
not have a unique MAC or to do something to make them unique (add IP
or something) much more easily if they're NOT a PK/FK. That's the
real issue to me.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Smith | 2011-05-05 00:02:13 | Re: Fwd: Re: SSDD reliability |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-05-04 20:42:41 | Re: GROUP BY Wildcard Syntax Thought |