On Tue, Oct 04, 2005 at 07:50:28PM -0400, Ferindo Middleton Jr wrote:
> Based on the feedback I received after I made that original post, it
> seemed most people don't use SERIAL with a unique constraint or primary
> key and I was blasted for making such a suggestion. I'm sorry... It
I don't
Richard Huxton wrote:
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
Is there some reason why the SERIAL data type doesn't
automatically have a UNIQUE CONSTRAINT.
It used to, and then we decoupled it.
[snip]
Arguably it would have been better to make the default case add either
UNIQUE or PRIMARY KEY with a way to over
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 10:33:14AM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
On Mon, 2005-09-26 at 20:03, Tom Lane wrote:
Ferindo Middleton Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Is there some reason why the SERIAL data type doesn't automatically have
a UNIQUE CONSTRAINT.
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
Is there some reason why the SERIAL data type doesn't automatically have
a UNIQUE CONSTRAINT.
It used to, and then we decoupled it.
[snip]
Arguably it would have been better to make the default case add either
UNIQUE or PRIMARY KEY with a way to over-ride.
Arguably SERIA
On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 10:33:14AM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-09-26 at 20:03, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Ferindo Middleton Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Is there some reason why the SERIAL data type doesn't automatically have
> > > a UNIQUE CONSTRAINT.
> >
> > It used to, and then
"Ferindo Middleton Jr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Is there some reason why the SERIAL data type doesn't automatically have a
> UNIQUE CONSTRAINT. It seems that the main reason for using it is so that
> the value for this field keeps changing automatically and
On Mon, 2005-09-26 at 20:03, Tom Lane wrote:
> Ferindo Middleton Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Is there some reason why the SERIAL data type doesn't automatically have
> > a UNIQUE CONSTRAINT.
>
> It used to, and then we decoupled it. I don't think "I have no use for
> one without the other
You're right, Tom. I'm sure someone has a use for a serial field that
isn't unique. I just assumed that it was. I guess I didn't read the
documentation closely enough. At any rate, I had a table using a serial
field that I had to restore to a previous date when I noticed that I
forgot to set th
Ferindo Middleton Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is there some reason why the SERIAL data type doesn't automatically have
> a UNIQUE CONSTRAINT.
It used to, and then we decoupled it. I don't think "I have no use for
one without the other" translates to an argument that no one has a use
for it
Is there some reason why the SERIAL data type doesn't automatically have
a UNIQUE CONSTRAINT. It seems that the main reason for using it is so
that the value for this field keeps changing automatically and is never
null so any one record can be identified using it- So why not imply that
it is a
10 matches
Mail list logo
