Hi,
Jim C. Nasby írta:
> 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.
I just read it thoroughly, and the issues I listed wasn't mentioned
in the "black box" thread, at all. I am trying to implement the
standard syntax ( and gradually the conformant behaviour )
along the lines of sections 4.14.7, 11.3, 11.4, 11.7, 11.11,
11.12, 11.17 and 14.8.
Best regards,
Zoltán Böszörményi
