[Pulp-dev] 'id' versus 'pulp_id' on Content
dalley at redhat.com
Tue Jun 12 20:33:01 UTC 2018
> just curious, where does the rpm 'id' come from and how is it used
> differently than the NEVREA composite natural key.
It's a part of Erratum, not the actual RPM content, so it's unrelated to
NVREA. An example of an errata "id" would be "RHEA-2013:1777".
I agree with your point about '_id' and 'id' being confusing. I don't
think having 'pulp_id' would be so bad, but if there's still strong
objection to that idea, then I am fine with just moving forwards as-is and
making sure that we clearly document what field names plugin writers cannot
On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 3:44 PM, Jeff Ortel <jortel at redhat.com> wrote:
> On 06/08/2018 02:57 PM, Brian Bouterse wrote:
>> @jortel: We're blocked on your -1 vote expressed for 3704. We have
>> practical plugin writer issues with the current state. Can you elaborate on
>> why we shouldn't go forward with https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3704
> The 'ID' column is reserved for the primary key and is inappropriate for
> natural keys. This is well establish convention and best practice. Plugin
> writers specify natural keys. Also, by introducing '_' prefix (or any
> prefix) means a table could have both 'ID' and '_ID' columns which is
> especially confusing since the 'ID' column would not be the primary key.
> How does naming the natural key for an rpm as 'rpm_id' cause a significant
> problem for plugin writers?
> @bmbouters: just curious, where does the rpm 'id' come from and how is it
> used differently than the NEVREA composite natural key.
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Pulp-dev