From: | Kless <jonas(dot)esp(at)googlemail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: UUID - Data type inefficient |
Date: | 2008-07-10 17:11:28 |
Message-ID: | 0e730abc-8f8c-4e9e-81a1-19734761c67f@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Jul 10, 5:05 pm, m(dot)(dot)(dot)(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc (Mark Mielke) wrote:
> Mark Mielke wrote:
> > I didn't notice that he put 16. Now I'm looking at uuid.c in
> > PostgreSQL 8.3.3 and I see that it does use 16, and the struct
> > pg_uuid_t is length 16. I find myself confused now - why does
> > PostgreSQL define UUID_LEN as 16?
>
> > I will investigate if I have time tonight. There MUST be some mistake
> > or misunderstanding. 128-bit numbers should be stored as 8 bytes, not 16.
>
> Grrrr.... Kless you've confused me. 32-bit numbers = 4 bytes, 64-bit
> numbers = 8 bytes, 128-bit numbers = 16 bytes.
>
> You are out to lunch and you dragged me with you. Did we have beer at
> least? :-)
>
> Cheers,
> mark
>
> --
xDxD I see that the PostgreSQL developers have sense of humor :) I
like it.
It has been a failure mine. I question about that in the IRC, anybody
says me that structure but also say me of see here:
pgsql/src/backend/utils/adt/uuid.c:45:uuid_out
thing that I didn't make.
But it's clear that this problem has been well resolved.
Greetings!
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fabrízio de Royes Mello | 2008-07-10 17:20:27 | digest |
Previous Message | Gregory Stark | 2008-07-10 17:09:53 | Re: Protocol 3, Execute, maxrows to return, impact? |