NB the attribution colours seems to be mixed up a bit here, but this all
dialogue between me & Adrian.
On 26/08/15 09:48, Adrian Klaver wrote:
On 08/25/2015 02:23 PM, Gavin Flower wrote:
On 26/08/15 08:56, Adrian Klaver wrote:
[...]
have all gone to the same seminar on how to be Walmart and decided
they did not want unique numbers, but UPCs tied to price groups that
covered a variety of plants. Luckily, I was too stupid to
Natural Stupidity??? :-)
Oh yeah and a long history too, but that needs at least a pitcher of
beer to recount.
Well if you're ever in Auckland, I'll shout you a beer!
(We might even put you up for a night or two.)
(Sorry, couldn't resist!)
know surrogate keys where bad and had a sequence attached to the tag
table. This then became the tag id and made life a lot easier during
the transition. It still remains there, because people are people and
'natural' tends to be artificial and transient.
Extremely good examples, I'll bear them in mind - makes me even more
keen on surrogate primary keys. I'm always very wary when people tell
me some numbering scheme will NEVER change!!!
To add a recent one. My partner Nancy signed up for Medicare last year
to avoid the premium penalty. This year in July she signed up for
Social Security. Turns out, for reasons I do not understand,
CMS(https://www.cms.gov/) changes the Medicare account number at that
point. The reason we even cared is that the billing system thinks she
has two accounts and is double billing. Time on the phone with someone
at CMS was not enlightening. We where told to trust the system and
eventually it will work itself out. Still waiting:(
STOP IT!!! You're making me even more cynical and paranoid! :-)
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
