On Dec 1, 2008, at 7:36 PM, Brian Aker wrote:
Hi!
On Dec 1, 2008, at 5:26 PM, Tim Soderstrom wrote:
Is that such a bad thing? I mean, there are cases where a PK might
not work well - a logging table for instance. In those cases,
however, having an auto_increment, while a bit silly, does work.
It's not ideal perhaps, but if the engine is storing this
information anyway, I say why not expose that to the user. There
might be times when I want to do something silly with PKs on tables
that don't really need them (again the logging table). Better to
have that available to me than have it hidden in API magic. That
said, I say go with the simplest path to accomplishing this goal
properly. Isn't that one of the big things Drizle is setting out to
do, after all?
I am figuring someone would get mad if I did a:
"Sorry an error has been thrown because you tried to update/delete a
table without a primary key, please either disable replication or
add a primary key to the table"
There is a solution to this... but I really hate the solution and it
will be a performance drag for those running replication.
How so? If you don't define a PK with InnoDB, it makes one for you
(under the covers of course). And if you do create one, it uses that
instead. Couldn't Drizzle basically do the same thing? Or is this
basically part of the performance drag you mentioned?
Tim S.
_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss
Post to : [email protected]
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
