On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 05:54:19PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> In short, I think there's a reasonably good case to be made for losing the
> hidden dependency and re-adopting the viewpoint that saying SERIAL is
> *exactly* the same as making a sequence and then making a default
> expression that uses the sequence. Nothing behind the curtain.
>
> Comments, other opinions?
I find it user-unfriendly that I must grant select/update to the
SERIAL, separate than from the table. I don't really see anything
friendly about treating the object as separate.
I do see the benefits with regard to simplified implementation, and
flexibility.
As a compromise, I could see either choice being correct. I don't
see either direction as being both user friendly and simple.
Cheers,
mark
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
__________________________
. . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ |
| | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
and in the darkness bind them...
http://mark.mielke.cc/
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
match
