Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: BUG #5118: start-status-insert-fatal

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "Pedro Gimeno" <pgsql-003(at)personal(dot)formauri(dot)es>, <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Gerhard Leykam" <gel123(at)sealsystems(dot)de>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Subject: Re: BUG #5118: start-status-insert-fatal
Date: 2009-10-16 15:08:12
Message-ID: 4AD8460C020000250002BA62@gw.wicourts.gov (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
 
> Well, then Tom's idea of using a random number seems pretty solid no
> matter how you slice it.  Maybe a UUID.
 
A random number is looking like the best option.  I'm not sure why I'd
want to generate a perfectly good 128 bit random number and then throw
away six of the bits to dress it up as a UUID, though.  Do the
libraries for that do enough to introduce entropy to compensate for
the lost bits?  Any other benefit I'm missing?
 
-Kevin

In response to

Responses

pgsql-bugs by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2009-10-16 15:11:00
Subject: Re: BUG #5121: Segmentation Fault when using pam w/ krb5
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2009-10-16 14:42:05
Subject: Re: BUG #5118: start-status-insert-fatal

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group