Re: does a table always need a PK?

Hi all,

"Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_golden.net> wrote in message news:<OYy2b.694$FE.81687684_at_mantis.golden.net>...
> I have long argued that adequate support for user defined types and for
> adequate physical independence would give me all the tools I really need to
> devise my own ad hoc solutions. My own ad hoc solutions would be guaranteed
> consistent because I would have to construct them on a theory based
> structural framework consisting of relations and a formal, extensible type
> system.
>

I think this is absolutely right. I'm still in a way stunned that most current SQL databases are lumbered with what amounts to the type system of FORTRAN. Why have nulls if you can have something even at the horrid level of the Pascal variant record for dealing with "out of band" indicators ? You even get to stick with the boolean logic we all know and love !

That said, I'm still not 100% convinced about the type inheritance / possreps suggestion of Tutorial D. It's thoroughly defined, and very elegant (for what it's trying to achieve); I'm just not sure I'm asking the question it's answering. I think achieving a type system of at least the level of the Milner type system in Standard ML would be a perfectly good start, and a massive advance on where we are today.

• Tony