Re: Is a SERIAL column a "black box", or not?

From: Lukas Smith <smith(at)pooteeweet(dot)org>
To: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Is a SERIAL column a "black box", or not?
Date: 2006-05-01 22:02:51
Message-ID: 4456858B.40703@pooteeweet.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> On Mon, May 01, 2006 at 11:25:33AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc writes:
>>> Ah. I was wondering about that. When I saw the first poster tag
>>> 'SECURITY DEFINER' on the end of the expression I assumed it was
>>> something that I didn't know you could do... :-)
>> No, he was inventing syntax that doesn't exist.
>
> Which begs the question, how hard would it be to add that syntax? I
> suspect it would be useful in cases besides sequences, and certainly
> seems to be a lot less of a hassle than having to wrap stuff in an extra
> function just to get that capability...

In all the internal purity and technical concerns it helps PostGreSQL to
have an easy migration path for MySQL refugees. Anyways I think its
quite clear that there is more need for a black box than a macro.

regards,
Lukas

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2006-05-01 23:47:06 Re: Is a SERIAL column a "black box", or not?
Previous Message Jim C. Nasby 2006-05-01 21:40:52 Re: Is a SERIAL column a "black box", or not?