Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-db-derby-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 63100 invoked from network); 30 May 2005 16:39:00 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 30 May 2005 16:39:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 13299 invoked by uid 500); 30 May 2005 16:38:58 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-db-derby-dev-archive@db.apache.org Received: (qmail 13269 invoked by uid 500); 30 May 2005 16:38:58 -0000 Mailing-List: contact derby-dev-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: "Derby Development" Delivered-To: mailing list derby-dev@db.apache.org Received: (qmail 13255 invoked by uid 99); 30 May 2005 16:38:58 -0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.2 required=10.0 tests=DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE,DNS_FROM_RFC_POST,SPF_HELO_FAIL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (hermes.apache.org: local policy) Received: from e5.ny.us.ibm.com (HELO e5.ny.us.ibm.com) (32.97.182.145) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.28) with ESMTP; Mon, 30 May 2005 09:38:56 -0700 Received: from d01relay02.pok.ibm.com (d01relay02.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.234]) by e5.ny.us.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j4UGcqI9027059 for ; Mon, 30 May 2005 12:38:52 -0400 Received: from d01av01.pok.ibm.com (d01av01.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.215]) by d01relay02.pok.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VER6.6) with ESMTP id j4UGcqFC157860 for ; Mon, 30 May 2005 12:38:52 -0400 Received: from d01av01.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av01.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j4UGcqKm001926 for ; Mon, 30 May 2005 12:38:52 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (sig-9-65-84-179.mts.ibm.com [9.65.84.179]) by d01av01.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j4UGcphb001880 for ; Mon, 30 May 2005 12:38:52 -0400 Message-ID: <429B41C7.6090909@sbcglobal.net> Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 09:39:35 -0700 From: Army User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.7.1) Gecko/20040707 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Derby Development Subject: Re: DERBY-308 just be done and .... (Re: [jira] Updated: (DERBY-308) Modify dblook to support "GENERATED BY DEFAULT AS IDENTITY") References: <1100632999.1117108142940.JavaMail.jira@ajax.apache.org> <001e01c561eb$df5ab600$2000a8c0@Arkat> <4295FFB2.5040908@sbcglobal.net> <001301c562a7$79fbc210$2000a8c0@Arkat> <4297C34D.1070402@sbcglobal.net> <002f01c5650e$b13e8820$2000a8c0@Arkat> In-Reply-To: <002f01c5650e$b13e8820$2000a8c0@Arkat> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N TomohitoNakayama wrote: > Hello. > > I consider this issue in last weekend and agree your opinion in general. > "in general" means that I think "GENERATED_BY_DEFAULT" is better. > > To think manipulating the value in some script, no space in this value > would be better. > How do others think ? The only issue with this is consistency. For a column that's "GENERATED ALWAYS", Derby currently returns NULL for the default text. In order to be consistent, I think we should have the same behavior for the two types of columns: either return NULL for the default text in both cases, or else return some constant string. But that said, if we change GENERATED ALWAYS columns to return a non-null value (such as "GENERATED_ALWAYS"), then there's the chance that we introduce a regression: any users of the 10.0 release who expect a NULL will now get different behavior. I don't know if that's acceptable...? The safest (consistent) thing to do is to return NULL for columns that are GENERATED BY DEFAULT, so I think that's what I would vote for (despite my initial email saying otherwise). But that's just me--I hope anyone who feels otherwise will post saying so... Army