I know people hate settings, but what about one for auto id field type? It would let you handle backwards compatibility, uuid, and bigint...
-- C On 10 June 2017 5:42:42 AM AEST, Jacob Kaplan-Moss <ja...@jacobian.org> wrote: >I think this would be a good improvement, and I'd like to see it. I've >been >bitten by integers overflowing at least twice I can remember in my >career, >which is two times too many. > >However, a major thing we'd have to work out is the upgrade path >Consider a >simple model: > > class Person(Model): > name = CharField() > >In Django 1.11, this actually generates a model with an integer `id` >field. >But in we change it, in Django vNext, that `id` field would "turn into" >a >bigint magically without the underlying table changes. That'd be >confusing: >you'd expect the model to be "fixed" by pugrading to vNext, but it >wouldn't >be. I think the migrations engine would detect this as a migration (?), >so >perhaps that's the path forward, but it could still be super-confusing. >We've never shipped a release of Django that required a migration to >_all_ >your models. > >Have you thought about what the upgrade path should look like, Kenneth? > >Jacob > >On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 11:24 AM, Kenneth Reitz <kenn...@heroku.com> >wrote: > >> Dear Django Dev, >> >> >> >> At Heroku, we have the privilege of seeing an extremely broad range >of >> customers utilizing tools like Django to build their applications and >> companies. One of the things that we’ve seen customers hit, time and >time >> again when using tools like Django, is integer overflows for primary >keys. >> Their application starts behaving unpredictably once they reach the >> overflow, not even knowing such a constraint exists, and they often >think >> the problem is with their database provider, rather than with their >schema. >> Once they realize what is wrong, it’s a relatively trivial fix, but a >> migration can take several hours to complete, which results in >unacceptable >> amounts of downtime. >> >> >> >> Because of this, Heroku, as a company, would like to encourage >bigints as >> a sane reasonable default for primary keys for application models. If >the >> Django project agrees with this idea, that would mean that Django >would >> provide BigAutoField as the default for ‘id’ instead of AutoField. >> >> >> >> Rails made this change recently >> <http://www.mccartie.com/2016/12/05/rails-5.1.html>, and has seen >success >> in doing so. >> >> >> >> I’m happy to provide the code to do this, but I wanted to discuss it >here >> before doing so, to hear what the general consensus was to the >proposal of >> such a change. >> >> >> >> >> >> Pros: >> >> - >> >> Users of Django, following the docs, won’t accidentally hit the >int >> overflow barrier. >> - >> >> Encourages best-practices from the beginning. >> - >> >> Bigints don’t take up much more storage than ints when using >Postgres. >> - >> >> In-line with other frameworks moving forward on this issue, like >Rails >> <http://www.mccartie.com/2016/12/05/rails-5.1.html>. >> >> >> >> Cons: >> >> - >> >> Backwards compatibility would need to be considered. >> >> >> Why not UUID? >> >> >> >> I agree! I love using UUID for my primary keys, and I think a patch >to >> Django which provides an AutoUUIDField would be wonderful. However, >there >> are a few major drawbacks to making this the new default: >> >> >> >> 1. >> >> It’s confusing to new users, would make onboarding process more >> difficult. >> 2. >> >> UUID is difficult to implement in MySQL. >> 3. >> >> UUID has larger storage requirements. >> 4. >> >> Incrementing IDs are actually useful. >> >> >> >> >> So, my proposal is to simply lift the int barrier to a bigint barrier >for >> new Django applications, and I think it will save a lot of developers >a lot >> of pain in the long run. >> >> >> >> Many thanks, >> >> >> >> Kenneth Reitz >> >> Heroku Python >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >Groups >> "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >send an >> email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> To post to this group, send email to >django-developers@googlegroups.com. >> Visit this group at >https://groups.google.com/group/django-developers. >> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/ >> msgid/django-developers/6fe3401c-4404-4bd8-9d22- >> 58df95cd1348%40googlegroups.com >> ><https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/6fe3401c-4404-4bd8-9d22-58df95cd1348%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >> . >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > >-- >You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >Groups "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group. >To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >an email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >To post to this group, send email to >django-developers@googlegroups.com. >Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/django-developers. >To view this discussion on the web visit >https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CAK8PqJELsQdpKEcg-a_iEKKwoYkoGmc8pikFM-hgG4g0CZE8XQ%40mail.gmail.com. >For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/django-developers. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/9E7797E5-3F14-4E1D-AEB9-950BB45F87E6%40tinbrain.net. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
