On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 02:27:31PM +0200, B?sz?rm?nyi Zolt?n wrote:
> > Zoltan Boszormenyi <zboszor@dunaweb.hu> writes:
> >> after some experimentation, I came up with the attached patch,
> >> which implements parsing the following SERIAL types:
> >
> > As has been pointed out before, it would be a seriously bad idea to
> > implement the SQL syntax for identity columns without matching the
> > SQL semantics for them. That would leave us behind the eight-ball
> > when we wanted to implement the SQL semantics. Right now we have
> > a useful but non-standard semantics, and a useful but non-standard
> > syntax, and those two should stick together.
>
> Well, I read all sections of 5WD-02-Foundation-2003-09.pdf
> where "identity" appears, here are the list of changes that will
> be needed for an identity column:
Have you read the archives on the recent discussions that have taken
place about whether SERIAL should be a black box or not? IIRC most of
this was all hashed out in that thread.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
