Add note about the requirement of integer primary keys in generic relations

[Rudolph Froger]

For Generic Relations using an integer primary key is a requirement. Non-integer primary keys will not work. I will add a patch to add this note to the docs.

Please also see the discussion on ​Google Groups.

[Rudolph Froger]

Adds note to docs about field types for primary keys

[charmless]

I've been using non-integer primary keys with my generic relations just fine. In fact, with Postgres 8.2 (but not 8.3), integers are converted to strings, so I can have my relations reference models with both string and integer primary keys. I have no idea about dates. This mixing is a Postgres 8.2-specific 'hack', but there's nothing standing in the way of heterogeneous non-integer primary keys for generic relations.

So I'm a bit confused and worried regarding what this ticket is about.

[charmless]

... and then I read the actual patch proposed and was enlightened. Ignore me. (though a method for handling heterogeneous keys, as the psql hack above does, in a general way, might be nice.)

[Russell Keith-Magee]

(In [7976]) Fixed #7785 -- Added a note in the contenttypes documentation that GenericRelations must share a common field type for primary keys. Thanks to Rudolph for the suggestion and initial draft.

[Jacob]

Milestone 1.0 beta deleted