mahara-contributors team mailing list archive

[Aaron Wells <845948@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Yep, I believe the practice is called a "surrogate key" (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrogate_key ). There are arguments for
and against them, and certainly previous Mahara devs didn't care for
mandatory surrogate keys.

But I'm in favor of them. In my experience it's a lot more common to
find yourself in a situation where you wish a table had an arbitrary
unique ID, than to find yourself in a situation where it doesn't.

-- 
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Mahara
Contributors, which is subscribed to Mahara.
Matching subscriptions: Subscription for all Mahara Contributors -- please ask on #mahara-dev or mahara.org forum before editing or unsubscribing it!
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/845948

Title:
  missing primary keys

Status in Mahara ePortfolio:
  Confirmed

Bug description:
  It seems during the installation of Mahara several tables are created
  without primary keys. This caused a headache for us when restoring
  tables from a pg_dump script, duplicate records were created.
  Specifically the table 'blocktype_installed_category', caused
  duplicate block types in the UI (confusing some users). A further
  check revealed the following tables also missing primary keys:

  artefact_log
  view_access
  view_visit
  blocktype_installed_category

  Version: 1.4.0
  Database: Postgres
  OS: Linux/RHEL

To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/mahara/+bug/845948/+subscriptions