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
