I sit corrected.  

*slightly humbled*

Why not do an unsigned int16 to hold your UUID generated numbers.   
Ultimately, this would seem to be a more general solution and accomplish 
your goals at the sametime.  Or, am I completely missing something.

Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:

>>don't create a bazillion datatypes.  Besides, 128 bit numbers are 7
>>byte integers.
>>
>
>Hang on:  128 div 8 = 16 byte integer
>
>>PostgreSQL has an int8 (8 byte integer) datatype.
>>
>
>And therefore it is a _64_ bit integer and you can't have a 256bit unique
>number in it...
>
>>While I like the UUID function idea, I'd recommend a better solution to
>>creating an "unique" identifier.  Why not create a serial8 datatype:
>>int8 with an int8 sequence = 256bit "unique" number.  {Yes, I know
>>violating my first sentence.}  Then, you'd have the same thing (or
>>better) AND your not relying on randomness.
>>
>
>Chris
>

In response to

• RE: Re: New data type: uniqueidentifier at 2001-07-03 01:37:33 from Christopher Kings-Lynne

Responses

• Re: Re: New data type: uniqueidentifier at 2001-07-03 02:30:50 from Alex Pilosov

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Alex Pilosov	Date: 2001-07-03 02:27:31
	Subject: Re: selecting from cursor
Previous:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2001-07-03 01:51:00
	Subject: Re: selecting from cursor