| From: | Gevik Babakhani <pgdev(at)xs4all(dot)nl> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Dunstan <pgsql(at)tomd(dot)cc> |
| Cc: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jimn(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Opinion wanted on UUID/GUID datatype output formats. |
| Date: | 2006-09-20 13:01:41 |
| Message-ID: | 1158757302.22092.31.camel@voyager.truesoftware.net |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> The dashless format is neither standards compliant nor compatible with
> other databases that have uuid functions (notably MS SQL Server and
> MySQL), nor with microsoft tools where they're used frequently.
> (ignoring the {} wrapping stuff which is trivial).
>
> If we add a UUID type to core, I think that a vast majority of the
> people who are going to want to use it out there will be expecting the
> standard format with dashes. And asking them to put a formatting
> function into every query is beyond horrific.
>
> If we want a general raw hex type then let's call it something else,
> because calling it UUID will just confuse people. Everyone else follows
> the standard on this; we should too.
Agreed to all above. The formatting issues are all handled in the patch.
Regards,
Gevik
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Matthew T. O'Connor | 2006-09-20 13:04:21 | Re: pdfs of the conference |
| Previous Message | Zdenek Kotala | 2006-09-20 12:56:23 | Re: guc comment changes (was Re: Getting a move on for 8.2 |