X-Original-To: pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org
Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 823B5D9826
	for <pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Mon, 26 Sep 2005 22:03:17 -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 53143-05
	for <pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Tue, 27 Sep 2005 01:03:13 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45C9AD9823
	for <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>; Mon, 26 Sep 2005 22:03:14 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j8R13Iiu005900;
	Mon, 26 Sep 2005 21:03:18 -0400 (EDT)
To: fmiddleton@verizon.net
Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Why doesn't the SERIAL data type automatically have a UNIQUE
	CONSTRAINT
In-reply-to: <4338961E.20100@verizon.net> 
References: <4338961E.20100@verizon.net>
Comments: In-reply-to Ferindo Middleton Jr <fmiddleton@verizon.net>
	message dated "Mon, 26 Sep 2005 20:45:18 -0400"
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 21:03:18 -0400
Message-ID: <5899.1127782998@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.006 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.006]
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 200509/260
X-Sequence-Number: 22807

Ferindo Middleton Jr <fmiddleton@verizon.net> writes:
> Is there some reason why the SERIAL data type doesn't automatically have 
> a UNIQUE CONSTRAINT.

It used to, and then we decoupled it.  I don't think "I have no use for
one without the other" translates to an argument that no one has a use
for it ...

			regards, tom lane