| From: | Jan de Visser <jdevisser(at)digitalfairway(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Gevik Babakhani <pgdev(at)xs4all(dot)nl> |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal for GUID datatype |
| Date: | 2006-09-09 11:06:23 |
| Message-ID: | 200609090706.23611.jdevisser@digitalfairway.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Saturday 09 September 2006 01:33, mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc wrote:
> I don't think so. If it isn't 128 bits - and you want to fit it into
> 128 bits, it means padding. Where should the padding go? As application
> specific, it is up to the application to convert.
I am not saying that. I am just saying that you shouldn't limit yourself to
any particular input formats. I understand that the example I gave is not a
full GUID. As I said, I use that result as a base for a 128 bit GUID.
Aargh.
jan
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jan de Visser jdevisser(at)digitalfairway(dot)com
Baruk Khazad! Khazad ai-menu!
--------------------------------------------------------------
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | mark | 2006-09-09 12:29:16 | Re: Proposal for GUID datatype |
| Previous Message | Christopher Browne | 2006-09-09 10:25:34 | Re: [HACKERS] Fix linking of OpenLDAP libraries |