| From: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee> |
|---|---|
| To: | Neil Tiffin <ntiffin(at)earthlink(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at>, "'Tom Lane'" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, gnue-geas(at)lists(dot)gnue(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal: OID wraparound: summary and proposal |
| Date: | 2001-08-07 05:09:24 |
| Message-ID: | 3B6F7804.5A0CD46A@tm.ee |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Neil Tiffin wrote:
>
> I would just like to comment that for our project, GNU Enterprise, we
> use our own 128 bit object ID that is unique (UUID) for every row in
> all tables.
>
> It seems to me, without having looked into it, that having both a
> PostgreSQL UID and our own 128 bit objectid (UUID) is redundant and
> slows the whole process down. But we are storing object data in the
> database and require and absolutely unique objectid. We are planning
> for enterprise usage and expect to need 128 bits to uniquely define
> our objects.
Is it just an 128-bit int from a sequence or does it have some internal
structure ?
What kind of enterprise do you expect to have more than
18 446 744 073 709 551 615 of objects that can uniquely be identified
by 64 bits ?
-------------
Hannu
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Lincoln Yeoh | 2001-08-07 06:20:25 | Re: Re: Notes about int8 sequences |
| Previous Message | Hannu Krosing | 2001-08-07 04:14:13 | Re: Re: AW: Re: OID wraparound: summary and proposal |