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
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
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

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

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