Re: [Gnumed-devel] Questions re database schema - naming

[J Busser]

At 10:35 PM +0200 9/1/04, Karsten Hilbert wrote:
> But he is talking about primary and foreign keys ONLY. Not
> simple fields. I agree it may be preferable to name primary
> keys "pk_<table_name>" or "id_<table_name>" instead of just
> "id" or "pk". OTOH, and IF we want to be explicit in naming why
> not be explicit in a way that is already available *anyways* ?
> Eg. I am again saying that we shouldn't reinvent namespaces,
> and badly.  OTOH again, I have had to resort to explicitly
> name primary keys "pk_<table>" -- when I intended to inherit
> from <table> and would thus end up with TWO "pk" or "id"
> columns. In that case it was safer that way to make sure we
> covered our bases in all cases of possible ambiguity.

In the table "address" we have the pk_audit field
NOT NULL  DEFAULT nextval('public.audit_fields_pk_audit_seq'::text)

In the table audit_fields I cannot find audit_fields_pk_audit_seq.
From where does it come?
Likewise audit_trail_pk_audit_seq'

Are these missing from the table definitions?