Richard Huxton wrote:
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
Is there some reason why the SERIAL data type doesn't
automatically have a UNIQUE CONSTRAINT.
It used to, and then we decoupled it.
[snip]
Arguably it would have been better to make the default case add either
UNIQUE or PRIMARY KEY with a way to over-ride.
Arguably SERIAL shouldn't be a type at all since it's nothing to do
with defining a set of values. If you were being clean about it you'd
have to have something like "mycol INTEGER SERIAL UNIQUE", then wire
SERIAL to a generator function for the type in question.
If newbies are getting burned maybe it would be useful to toss a NOTICE
or maybe even WARNING when a serial is created without a unique
constraint of some kind?
Don't forget the NOT NULL too. Perhaps simpler to have a PGIDENT
pseudo-type that implies "UNIQUE NOT NULL" and then explain the
difference in the docs.
--
Richard Huxton
Archonet Ltd
I like Richard's idea. That seems to be the best way to go.
Ferindo
Sleekcollar
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
