Re: SQL Humor

From: paul c <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac>
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 22:35:10 GMT
Message-ID: <y8tNe.263839$5V4.254245@pd7tw3no>

Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 22:37:45 +0200, Tom Ivar Helbekkmo
> <tih_at_hamartun.priv.no> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>

>>Of course, the member number has no physical reality, and it will be
>>an automatically assigned serial number (without reuse of defunct
>>numbers when people quit or die) -- generally, it seems to be what you
>>rant against.

>
>
> No, it is when the number is referring to how the data is
> physically stored. If the number is a record number or an address or
> other such, then it ties your data to the physical implementation. A
> member number (if used just as that) would not do that.
> ...

i don't believe that som physical connection ensues by a machine's choice of key, but maybe it doesn't matter as i'm stupid which some of my postings prove. once the value of the number is in a relation, if we are talking about relations and not something else, and we agree, if we may, to call it a 'key', then i'd say it is pretty much immutable, until somebody 'deletes' it. sorry for all the conditions, but my limited understanding requires me to specify limits!

cheers,
p Received on Fri Aug 19 2005 - 17:35:10 CDT