Timeline for Why not expose a primary key
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
28 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S Aug 28, 2017 at 18:49 | history | suggested | Tsundoku |
removed the tag 'accessibility', which does not apply here
|
|
| Aug 28, 2017 at 17:46 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Aug 28, 2017 at 18:49 | |||||
| Nov 15, 2013 at 13:55 | vote | accept | Angelo Fuchs | ||
| Nov 14, 2013 at 12:40 | comment | added | Michael Durrant | For instance printing the number on the users monthly account statement. | |
| Nov 14, 2013 at 12:21 | answer | added | Muton | timeline score: 5 | |
| Nov 14, 2013 at 9:32 | history | edited | Angelo Fuchs | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
correct display of list
|
| Nov 14, 2013 at 9:17 | answer | added | Angelo Fuchs | timeline score: 23 | |
| Nov 13, 2013 at 21:41 | history | edited | Angelo Fuchs | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 174 characters in body
|
| Nov 13, 2013 at 21:18 | history | edited | Angelo Fuchs | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added example
|
| Nov 13, 2013 at 21:13 | comment | added | Angelo Fuchs | @CodeCaster I added an example. | |
| Nov 13, 2013 at 21:12 | history | edited | Angelo Fuchs | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added example
|
| Nov 13, 2013 at 21:01 | comment | added | Angelo Fuchs | "expose" means showing it to the user. (By user I mean a human mostly, but the question seems valid for machines as well) | |
| Nov 13, 2013 at 19:24 | comment | added | CodeCaster | Can you pelase elaborate on what you mean with "expose"? An actual example might help. :-) | |
| Nov 13, 2013 at 19:12 | comment | added | Angelo Fuchs | @Izkata Yeah, except when you reference them in a different datastore (UserID in LDAP as a simple example), or you need to have to recover some data from a backup. gnat has a good point there. | |
| Nov 13, 2013 at 19:09 | answer | added | Michael Durrant | timeline score: 36 | |
| Nov 13, 2013 at 18:11 | comment | added | Izkata |
@gnat ON UPDATE CASCADE was made for that (mysql specific?), although if the issue is security then the access checking should be on the backend and not trust the user anyway
|
|
| Nov 13, 2013 at 17:09 | answer | added | Saeed Neamati | timeline score: 1 | |
| Nov 13, 2013 at 15:31 | answer | added | nvogel | timeline score: 4 | |
| Nov 13, 2013 at 14:05 | answer | added | Telastyn | timeline score: 39 | |
| Nov 13, 2013 at 13:58 | answer | added | JeffO | timeline score: 3 | |
| Nov 13, 2013 at 11:50 | answer | added | Wayne M | timeline score: 9 | |
| Nov 13, 2013 at 10:01 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackProgrammer/status/400564086121189376 | ||
| Nov 13, 2013 at 8:52 | answer | added | CodeCaster | timeline score: 56 | |
| Nov 13, 2013 at 8:31 | history | edited | Angelo Fuchs | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 6 characters in body
|
| Nov 13, 2013 at 8:09 | comment | added | gnat | related: Should a surrogate key ever be exposed to a user? "You need to be ready for any identifier that is exposed to users/customers needing to be changed, and changing the identity of a row in a database and propagating that change to all foreign keys is just asking to break data..." | |
| Nov 13, 2013 at 7:11 | history | edited | gnat | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
shopping /off (http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/11/qa-is-hard-lets-go-shopping/)
|
| Nov 13, 2013 at 7:07 | review | First posts | |||
| Nov 13, 2013 at 7:10 | |||||
| Nov 13, 2013 at 6:49 | history | asked | Angelo Fuchs | CC BY-SA 3.0 |