[krylon]

I'm glad it worked out for you. It is a funny story, though, so don't be mad at me for chuckling a little bit. (I guess the guests at your wedding did so, too.)

A friend of my mother's has to twin sons who married two women who had not only the same first name but also worked at the same company. Both ladies took their husbands' names, so they both had the same names. I imagine it must have been both funny and confusing.

When I last worked as a sysadmin, our ERP software used the name as a primary key for employees, so the idea of having two employees with the same name drives me a little bit crazy. (Even worse, though, it did not use FOREIGN KEY constraints but TRIGGERs. I am not sure about performance implications, but from an aesthetical perspective, this is just wrong.)

[Cd00d]

our ERP software used the name as a primary key for employees

As someone with a common first name and common surname, this drives me bananas.

I still get emails from my graduate university to email: [e-mail] meant for some undergraduate in a sea of 50k students, and have to reply that I've had that email for 20 years and they have the wrong person with a very common name.

[krylon]

I have to admit I found the very concept of using a value that could change as a primary repulsive from an aesthetic point of view. It's just bad database design.

Still, I feel for you. My primary concern, though, was that it made life more complicated for me. But email adresses were separate from ERP user names, and we did not have two employees with the same name, so [e-mail] was good enough for our purposes.