Wow. Serious effort here.
Ryan Bradetich wrote:
> 1. Leave it as it is now. It works, just explain to
> people that sequences and tables are seperate entities,
> and the serial type is just a shortcut.
I dislike this approach. It seems that it is hiding detail
that is necessary for proper maintence. It isn't that
hard to type in the code. IMHO, the shortcut causes more
confusion that it helps. So, I propose a third option:
0. Remove the SERIAL construct.
> 2. Create a new data type serial. I haven't thought idea
> out much, and need to investigate it some more. I'm thinking
> it would be binary equivilent with the int4 type, and use
> most of the existing seqence code, but not put the seqence
> name entry in the pg_class system table. Does this sound
> like a feasible idea?
This dosn't sound all that bad... but I really
wonder what the advantage is.
I vote for "0". Sorry to dissappoint.
Clark
