> > just curious, where does the rpm 'id' come from and how is it used > differently than the NEVREA composite natural key.
It's a part of Erratum, not the actual RPM content, so it's unrelated to NVREA. An example of an errata "id" would be "RHEA-2013:1777". I agree with your point about '_id' and 'id' being confusing. I don't think having 'pulp_id' would be so bad, but if there's still strong objection to that idea, then I am fine with just moving forwards as-is and making sure that we clearly document what field names plugin writers cannot use. On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 3:44 PM, Jeff Ortel <jor...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 06/08/2018 02:57 PM, Brian Bouterse wrote: > >> >> @jortel: We're blocked on your -1 vote expressed for 3704. We have >> practical plugin writer issues with the current state. Can you elaborate on >> why we shouldn't go forward with https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3704 >> > > The 'ID' column is reserved for the primary key and is inappropriate for > natural keys. This is well establish convention and best practice. Plugin > writers specify natural keys. Also, by introducing '_' prefix (or any > prefix) means a table could have both 'ID' and '_ID' columns which is > especially confusing since the 'ID' column would not be the primary key. > > How does naming the natural key for an rpm as 'rpm_id' cause a significant > problem for plugin writers? > > @bmbouters: just curious, where does the rpm 'id' come from and how is it > used differently than the NEVREA composite natural key. > > > _______________________________________________ > Pulp-dev mailing list > Pulp-dev@redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list Pulp-dev@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev