On Tue, Sep 19, 2006 at 11:21:51PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 19, 2006 at 08:20:13AM -0500, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> > > On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 07:45:07PM -0400, mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc wrote:
> > > > I would not use a 100% random number generator for a UUID value as was
> > > > suggested. I prefer inserting the MAC address and the time, to at
> > > > least allow me to control if a collision is possible. This is not easy
> > > > to do using a few lines of C code. I'd rather have a UUID type in core
> > > > with no generation routine, than no UUID type in core because the code
> > > > is too complicated to maintain, or not portable enough.
> > > As others have mentioned, using MAC address doesn't remove the
> > > possibility of a collision.
> > It does, as I control the MAC address.
> What happens if you have two postmaster running on the same machine?
Could be bad things. :-)
For the case of two postmaster processes, I assume you mean two
different databases? If you never intend to merge the data between the
two databases, the problem is irrelevant. There is a much greater
chance that any UUID form is more unique, or can be guaranteed to be
unique, within a single application instance, than across all
application instances in existence. If you do intend to merge the
data, you may have a problem.
If I have two connections to PostgreSQL - would the plpgsql procedures
be executed from two different processes? With an in-core generation
routine, I think it is possible for it to collide unless inter-process
synchronization is used (unlikely) to ensure generation of unique
time/sequence combinations each time. I use this right now (mostly),
but as I've mentioned, it isn't my favourite. It's convenient. I don't
believe it provides the sort of guarantees that a SERIAL provides.
A model that intended to try and guarantee uniqueness would provide a
UUID generation service for the entire host, that was not specific to
any application, or database, possibly accessible via the loopback
address. It would ensure that at any given time, either the time is
new, or the sequence is new for the time. If computer time ever went
backwards, it could keep the last time issued persistent, and
increment from this point forward through the clock sequence values
until real time catches up. An alternative would be along the lines of
a /dev/uuid device, that like /dev/random, would be responsible for
outputting unique uuid values for the system. Who does this? Probably
nobody. I'm tempted to implement it, though, for my uses. :-)
mark(at)mielke(dot)cc / markm(at)ncf(dot)ca / markm(at)nortel(dot)com __________________________
. . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ |
| | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
and in the darkness bind them...
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Jeremy Drake||Date: 2006-09-20 06:07:18|
|Subject: Re: polite request about syntax|
|Previous:||From: Alvaro Herrera||Date: 2006-09-20 03:33:00|
|Subject: Re: system cache and buffer cache|
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Harald Armin Massa||Date: 2006-09-20 07:02:56|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Patch for UUID datatype (beta)|
|Previous:||From: Merlin Moncure||Date: 2006-09-20 03:28:02|
|Subject: Fwd: docs for advisory locks|