From: | Gregory Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
---|---|
To: | mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc |
Cc: | andrew(at)supernews(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [PATCHES] Patch for UUID datatype (beta) |
Date: | 2006-09-20 09:04:00 |
Message-ID: | 87k63y9af3.fsf@stark.xeocode.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc writes:
> I have the impression I'm not being heard.
>
> *I* control the MAC address assignment for all of *MY* units.
No, you're missing the point. How does that help *me* avoid collisions with
your UUIDs? UUIDs are supposed to be unique period, not just unique on your
database.
If all you want is unique number generation in your database then you can just
use sequences and they'll take a lot less space and perform much better.
(16-byte foreign keys throughout the whole database, *shudder*)
The reason to use UUIDs is when you want to have unique identifiers that you
can send outside the database and know they won't conflict with other unique
identifiers generated elsewhere.
Really this whole debate only reinforces the point that there isn't a single
way of doing UUID generation. There are multiple libraries out there each with
pros and cons. It makes more sense to have multiple pgfoundry UUID generating
modules.
--
greg
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jeremy Drake | 2006-09-20 09:59:38 | Re: [PATCHES] Patch for UUID datatype (beta) |
Previous Message | Albe Laurenz | 2006-09-20 07:58:09 | 'configure --disable-shared' and 'make check' |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jeremy Drake | 2006-09-20 09:59:38 | Re: [PATCHES] Patch for UUID datatype (beta) |
Previous Message | Harald Armin Massa | 2006-09-20 07:02:56 | Re: [HACKERS] Patch for UUID datatype (beta) |