On 17/10/12 17:56, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 10/17/2012 07:28 AM, Dave Cramer wrote:
>> So what is the consensus on this.
>>
>> I would lean towards removing serial types here
>
> I certainly want to, as I think the status quo is not only inefficient
> and incorrect but it fails to even function as designed (incorrectly
> calling 'integer' columns generated by a sequence 'serial' no matter
> what the sequence is) and cannot easily be fixed.
>
> The questions that must still be answered are:
>
> - How do we tell developers about the change?
>
> - Is a compatibility flag required?
>
> - What might it break? Do we need to test popular ORM systems or let
> their developers know?
>
> - What does the metadata spec actually require us to supply?
>
>
> The 9.2 driver has been pushed and it's a backwards-incompatible
> change, so it's probably a change that's only suitable for 9.3/master.
> I'm inclined to just make the change in master, push a beta driver to
> the website, and see it reports come in. I can test Hibernate and
> EclipseLink out, but I'm pretty sure they won't care.
>
>
> BTW, I'm quite surprised that PostgreSQL doesn't expose information
> about column value generation in INFORMATION_SCHEMA.COLUMNS at the
> moment; the "is_identity" column is always "NO" and "is_generated" is
> always "NEVER". `pg_attribute` doesn't seem to convey it either.
> Shouldn't we be able to ask PostgreSQL for this information?
>
> I'll have a look and see how the driver currently reports whether
> fields are generated, are identity fields, etc.
>
> Looking at the number of issue reports that focus on metadata, I
> suspect that's a real weak point of the current driver and really
> needs a review. Yay. Something for all that abundant spare time.
>
> --
> Craig Ringer
>
>
Come on!
You were getting bored out of your tiny little mind!!
<Quickly ducks, and runs away _VERY_ FAST_!!!>
Cheers,
Gavin
