- Feature Articles
- CodeSOD
- Error'd
-
Forums
-
Other Articles
- Random Article
- Other Series
- Alex's Soapbox
- Announcements
- Best of…
- Best of Email
- Best of the Sidebar
- Bring Your Own Code
- Coded Smorgasbord
- Mandatory Fun Day
- Off Topic
- Representative Line
- News Roundup
- Editor's Soapbox
- Software on the Rocks
- Souvenir Potpourri
- Sponsor Post
- Tales from the Interview
- The Daily WTF: Live
- Virtudyne
Edit Admin
(Hoping the formatting above will work correctly.)
If the vendor had waited until then to realise this was an actual possibility, then it's highly probable that the internal details of the solution will not involve automatic ID fields and uniqueness constraints, you know, the stuff the database provides to solve this very problem...
Oh, and that in a few years, those internal details will end up posted here, by someone...
Addendum 2025-10-08 07:04: (Yay! It worked the way I wanted.)
Edit Admin
They didn't necessarily need to "add a really unique id". There wouldn't be anything wrong with using the combination of customer ID and entity ID as the primary key. They would just have to know that they can do that.
Admin
You guys have composite keys? Is it 1971 already?
Admin
Off: in some famous database-product, session-identifiers (SIDs) are reused (though sessions also have unique serial-numbers), and in some version you could inherit not only the SID from a previous session, but the statement-cache also, so sometimes the statement-parsing didn't happened, as the statement (and its parsed form) was already in the statement-cache.
The problem came when the statement included an unqualified table-name (such as
insert (cnt,txt) values (user_log_seq.nextval,v_msg) into user_log
when the old session and the new session belonged to different users: the execution tried to insert newuser's record into olduser's table.Edit Admin
Until they find out all the problems with their home-rolled "really unique identifiers". Then you can stand by for the rollout of the "really, really unique identifiers".
Hopefully by then, you will have switched to a vendor with at least half a clue.