> I would expect it to update, no matter what field was changed (so if it was > the primary key or not it shouldn't matter)
The more I think of it, the more I agree. Such a change would go well with the Principle of Least Astonishment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_astonishment > But as changing it was break existing code which "clones" a record without > explicitly calling copy(), I would propose to have a setting which indicates > what behaviour should happen on a primary key update when using .store() Or, since jOOQ 3.0 is a major release, maybe we should just change this behaviour backwards-incompatibly. I could then add some remarks to the jOOQ 2.x maintenance version Javadoc, indicating that this behaviour will be rectified in 3.0. I have created #1949 for this: https://github.com/jOOQ/jOOQ/issues/1949 I will generally re-think the INSERT / UPDATE behaviour of Record.store() in jOOQ 3.0, keeping as much backwards-compatibility as possible, of course. But this topic has lead to confusion many times on this user group, so it's worth re-thinking Cheers Lukas
