> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org
> [mailto:pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of
> Richard Broersma Jr
> Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 10:28 AM
> To: Joshua D. Drake
> Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Primary Key
>
> --- On Mon, 11/26/07, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
>
> > In "theory" the item that would be a natural key in this
> instance is
> > the VIN. You would of course have to make some kind of
> allowance for
> > cars that don't have a VIN (nothing in the last what...
> > 50 years?).
>
> So this is why the service stations always record my cars VIN
> number when I show up for oil changes. ;) Ofcourse, there is
> a whole industry built around auto theft where they restamp
> the stolen car with a differnt vin number. I wonder if these
> stolen cars end up with duplicated VIN numbers or if the
> VIN's they are given do not pass the the VIN check-sum (if
> such a think exists).
>
> Regards,
> Richard Broersma Jr.
>
> ---------------------------(end of
> broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org
> so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
>
VIN encoding is covered here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_Identification_Number
Looks like a poor choice for a primary key: too many confliciting, "meaningful", evolving-over-time digits that can be
mis-interepretedby your customers.
