Posted by chx on
- It's semantically correct. Anonymous posts aren't all by the fictitious user zero, they're all by an undefined ("NULL") user.
- 0 = 0, but NULL <> NULL. We shouldn't be pretending any anonymous post is by the "same" author as another anonymous post.
- We lose the "magic" anonymous user row in the users table.
- Should we ever use foreign keys, we can automate anonymizing user content on user deletion.
- We have to do annoying things to even use the value zero in an auto-incrementing MySQL column.
- We can better enforce what UID columns allow anonymous values by choosing whether to allow or disallow NULL values.
- Because we already handle the anonymous user as a special case (a variable_get with no link) when rendering usernames, we can stop the confusing practice of joining anonymous user content onto the users table only to ignore everything we get from it.
|PASSED: [[SimpleTest]]: [MySQL] 52,206 pass(es).|
|FAILED: [[SimpleTest]]: [MySQL] 51,341 pass(es), 1 fail(s), and 0 exception(s).|
|FAILED: [[SimpleTest]]: [MySQL] 51,327 pass(es), 1 fail(s), and 0 exception(s).|
|FAILED: [[SimpleTest]]: [MySQL] Drupal installation failed.|
|#25||350407-uid-is-totally-NULL-1-D7.patch||8.28 KB||Dave Reid|
|Failed: Failed to apply patch.|