Received: from mail.toppoint.de. (bender.toppoint.de [195.244.243.2]) by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA39531 for ; Mon, 22 May 2000 14:19:37 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from marten@feki.toppoint.de) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by mail.toppoint.de. (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA15301; Mon, 22 May 2000 20:18:54 +0200 (MET DST) >Received: (from marten@localhost) by feki.toppoint.de (8.9.3/8.9.3/SuSE Linux 8.9.3-0.1) id SAA02300; Mon, 22 May 2000 18:56:02 +0200 From: Marten Feldtmann Message-Id: <200005221656.SAA02300@feki.toppoint.de> Subject: Re: Thus spoke SQL3 (on OO) In-Reply-To: <39291781.D9947450@bitmead.com> from Chris Bitmead at "May 22, 2000 09:18:25 pm" To: Chris Bitmead Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 18:56:02 +0200 (CEST) CC: Hannu Krosing , Chris Bitmead , PostgreSQL Development X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL60 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Archive-Number: 200005/457 > Hannu Krosing wrote: > > It's not such a big deal really. When you do an OO model you don't need > to think about your own primary key. > Hmm, I see here more and more postings, that do say, the OID (or the result of a SEQUENCE) is usable for a key to identify an object stored within a database. Though it's true, that SEQUENCE can be used to create unique identifiers, the function is simply a hack - nothing more for greater OO software systems and worse than software solutions, which provide more power and lower traffic. The identification of an object has to be based on a unique key and it does not matter of which type it is. The foreign key is of course not useful for the oo-model, but for the programmer, which produces the object-relational wrapper this is VERY urgent ! And here again: if you use SEQUENCE for the OID you use a special feature of the database ... and that is bad. Marten