X-Original-To: pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DFC9D1B72E for ; Tue, 27 Jul 2004 23:32:23 -0300 (ADT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 75561-06 for ; Wed, 28 Jul 2004 02:32:20 +0000 (GMT) Received: from www.postgresql.com (www.postgresql.com [200.46.204.209]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74D94D1BA5B for ; Tue, 27 Jul 2004 23:31:15 -0300 (ADT) Received: from web11.manitu.net (web11.manitu.net [217.11.48.111]) by www.postgresql.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5588CF8D16 for ; Tue, 27 Jul 2004 20:24:26 -0300 (ADT) Received: from [192.168.0.1] (dsl-082-082-213-201.arcor-ip.net [82.82.213.201]) (authenticated) by web11.manitu.net (8.10.2-SOL3/8.10.2) with ESMTP id i6RNB3I20432; Wed, 28 Jul 2004 01:11:03 +0200 Subject: Re: surrogate key or not? From: Markus Bertheau To: Kenneth Gonsalves Cc: Karsten Hilbert , pgsql-sql@postgresql.org In-Reply-To: <0407231327461F.01150@thenilgiris.com> References: <1090325769.3241.27.camel@dicaprio.akademie1.de> <200407221005.59482.josh@agliodbs.com> <20040723085721.C728@hermes.hilbert.loc> <0407231327461F.01150@thenilgiris.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Message-Id: <1090969863.2724.1.camel@teetnang> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6 (1.4.6-2) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 01:11:03 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 tagged_above=0.0 required=5.0 tests= X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200407/232 X-Sequence-Number: 18484 =D0=92 =D0=9F=D1=82=D0=BD, 23.07.2004, =D0=B2 09:57, Kenneth Gonsalves =D0= =BF=D0=B8=D1=88=D0=B5=D1=82: > also, how did you get that neatly formatted output of the schema? This is postgresql_autodoc: http://www.rbt.ca/autodoc/ --=20 Markus Bertheau