| From: | Scott Marlowe <smarlowe(at)g2switchworks(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | John DeSoi <desoi(at)pgedit(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tino Wildenhain <tino(at)wildenhain(dot)de>, Riaan van der Westhuizen <riaan(at)huizensoft(dot)co(dot)za>, Postgresql-General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: GUID for postgreSQL |
| Date: | 2005-07-27 21:00:48 |
| Message-ID: | 1122498047.15145.141.camel@state.g2switchworks.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 15:57, John DeSoi wrote:
> On Jul 27, 2005, at 4:46 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
>
> > So, how can two databases, not currently talking to one another,
> > guarantee that their GUIDs don't collide? using a large randomly
> > generated name space only reduces the chances of collision, it doesn't
> > actually guarantee it.
>
>
> Like MD5, there is no 100% guarantee, but the collision possibility
> supposed to be is very close to zero.
Then I would think a better thought out solution would be one where your
unique ids ARE guaranteed to be unique, where you used something like
select 'astringuniqtothismachine'||nextval('localsequence');
That really would be guaranteed unique as long as you set up each
machine to have a string unique to it.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2005-07-27 21:03:00 | Re: GUID for postgreSQL |
| Previous Message | Ben | 2005-07-27 20:58:18 | Re: GUID for postgreSQL |