Hi!
I think an USING clause would be a great addition:
GENERATED BY DEFAULT AS IDENTITY [USING SEQUENCE ]
What do you think?
Adriano
Original Message
Subject:[Firebird-devel] [FB-Tracker] Created: (CORE-4191) Define
sequence name for "Identity Column Type"
Date: F
> I think an USING clause would be a great addition:
>
> GENERATED BY DEFAULT AS IDENTITY [USING SEQUENCE ]
>
> What do you think?
What Sequence (name) would be used if the USING was omitted?
Sean
--
Learn the late
On 27/08/2013 13:30, Leyne, Sean wrote:
>
>> I think an USING clause would be a great addition:
>>
>> GENERATED BY DEFAULT AS IDENTITY [USING SEQUENCE ]
>>
>> What do you think?
> What Sequence (name) would be used if the USING was omitted?
>
>
A generated one, like now and like happens with constr
27.08.2013 20:03, Adriano dos Santos Fernandes wrote:
>
> I think an USING clause would be a great addition:
>
> GENERATED BY DEFAULT AS IDENTITY [USING SEQUENCE ]
>
> What do you think?
Basically, I don't mind, but the behavior will be different from
constraints in regard to the already existing
On 27/08/2013 14:11, Dmitry Yemanov wrote:
> 27.08.2013 20:03, Adriano dos Santos Fernandes wrote:
>> I think an USING clause would be a great addition:
>>
>> GENERATED BY DEFAULT AS IDENTITY [USING SEQUENCE ]
>>
>> What do you think?
> Basically, I don't mind, but the behavior will be different fr
> >> I think an USING clause would be a great addition:
> >>
> >> GENERATED BY DEFAULT AS IDENTITY [USING SEQUENCE ]
> >>
> >> What do you think?
> > What Sequence (name) would be used if the USING was omitted?
> >
> >
> A generated one, like now and like happens with constraints and indexes.
Ar
> On 27/08/2013 14:11, Dmitry Yemanov wrote:
> > 27.08.2013 20:03, Adriano dos Santos Fernandes wrote:
> >> I think an USING clause would be a great addition:
> >>
> >> GENERATED BY DEFAULT AS IDENTITY [USING SEQUENCE ]
> >>
> >> What do you think?
> > Basically, I don't mind, but the behavior wi
On 27/08/2013 15:06, Leyne, Sean wrote:
>
I think an USING clause would be a great addition:
GENERATED BY DEFAULT AS IDENTITY [USING SEQUENCE ]
What do you think?
>>> What Sequence (name) would be used if the USING was omitted?
>>>
>>>
>> A generated one, like now and like
if firebird supported namespaces/schema AND longer identifiers, this would
be alot simpler...
On 27 August 2013 14:11, Leyne, Sean wrote:
>
>
> > On 27/08/2013 14:11, Dmitry Yemanov wrote:
> > > 27.08.2013 20:03, Adriano dos Santos Fernandes wrote:
> > >> I think an USING clause would be a
> I think an USING clause would be a great addition:
>
> GENERATED BY DEFAULT AS IDENTITY [USING SEQUENCE ]
>
> What do you think?
> >>> What Sequence (name) would be used if the USING was omitted?
> >>>
> >>>
> >> A generated one, like now and like happens with constrain
The user issue is about managing the internal generator.
You can do it now, but you need to discover its internal name.
Why complicate things?
Identity columns allows the use to put manually generated values. So the
ability to manage a sequence is a must-have.
And if a object can be managed, it
On 27/08/2013 15:19, Leyne, Sean wrote:
>
>> I think an USING clause would be a great addition:
>>
>> GENERATED BY DEFAULT AS IDENTITY [USING SEQUENCE ]
>>
>> What do you think?
> What Sequence (name) would be used if the USING was omitted?
>
>
A generated one,
27.08.2013 20:22, Adriano dos Santos Fernandes wrote:
> The user issue is about managing the internal generator.
>
> You can do it now, but you need to discover its internal name.
>
> Why complicate things?
Complication is managing identity columns via generator. Every operation
should be
per
On 27/08/2013 16:26, Dimitry Sibiryakov wrote:
> 27.08.2013 20:22, Adriano dos Santos Fernandes wrote:
>> The user issue is about managing the internal generator.
>>
>> You can do it now, but you need to discover its internal name.
>>
>> Why complicate things?
>Complication is managing identity
27.08.2013 22:06, Adriano dos Santos Fernandes wrote:
> Why do a future version will go against the SQL standard?
Does standard explicitly mention that identity's internal sequence must be
user-manipulatible? Does it say that in must be the same type of sequence as
"standalone"
ones?
Say,
Dimitry,
>Does standard explicitly mention that identity's internal sequence must be
> user-manipulatible? Does it say that in must be the same type of sequence
> as "standalone" ones?
>
>Say, Firebird one day decide to support cluster/cloud architecture and keep
> values in identity colum
Hi,
This is only theory about guids. I remember my real situation 10 servers from
the same part no. System with 1000 new rec per sec and every day we got e.g 20
records with the same guid on different mashines. We change design to prefix
keys in all servers unique.
Regards,
Karol Bieniaszewski
17 matches
Mail list logo
