This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/db-wg@ripe.net/
[db-wg] Fw: mntner with misleading primary key
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] Fw: mntner with misleading primary key
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] mntner with misleading primary key
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Chriztoffer Hansen
ch at ntrv.dk
Mon Sep 7 12:45:38 CEST 2020
On 07/09/2020 12:16, ripedenis--- via db-wg wrote: > enforce this on all 'new' MNTNER object creations > I'm all for enforcing this syntax per you comment above. Makes sense to _always_ be able to expect certain syntax rules for different DB objects types. > So if we go down this route where do we draw the line? Current standpoint: For a "phase I". I would suggest enforcing syntax rules for _new_ objects. Future standpoint up for discussion: For a "phase II", walkthrough current DB primary keys to get a scope of how many objects primary keys would need to be updated to follow "phase I" enforced syntax rules(?) -- Kind regards, CHRIZTOFFER
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] Fw: mntner with misleading primary key
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] mntner with misleading primary key
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ db-wg Archives ]