El Mar 06 Feb 2001 19:38, Dan Wilson escribió:
>
> What would this do that would be non-standard? Does the SERIAL datatype
> add something that is not standard? No... it just allows for an easy way
> to implement something that is standard. The SERIAL "type" isn't really a
> datatype, it's just a keyword that allows you to automatically specify an
> int4 column with a related sequence and default. I don't see why the same
> thing couldn't be done with TIMESTAMP!
You're right about the SERIAL type, but I still don't think there should be a
new type that those what a trigger can do.
If the developers added a new data type for each user that is to lazy to
create a trigger, this would look much like MySQL. :-)
Any way, with this kind of thoughts, why don't we take away the triggers, and
just make another built-in data type each time a user wants it?
> I'm not saying to create an actual datatype that is called TIMESTAMP or
> LAST_MODIFIED, just use it in a create script. It would then be
> implemented with the DATE datatype combined with triggers.
>
> Makes perfect sense to me!
But it would be built-in as it was said before? In that case we would have a
bigger backend. Very bad.... :-(
> BTW: I'm completely awake and I build applications specifically so I don't
> have to do things by hand (ie. so I can be "lazy" or more efficient,
> whichever you prefer).
You spotted the lazy stuff!!! ;-)
Saludos... :-)
--
System Administration: It's a dirty job,
but someone told I had to do it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Martín Marqués email: martin@math.unl.edu.ar
Santa Fe - Argentina http://math.unl.edu.ar/~martin/
Administrador de sistemas en math.unl.edu.ar
-----------------------------------------------------------------
