| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
| 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 17:53:34 |
| Message-ID: | 603c8f070910161053y53168705qcbc28764722e8be0@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 11:08 AM, Kevin Grittner
<Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> wrote:
> 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?
I'm confused. UUIDs throw away 6 bits?
Anyway, some smaller random number might be fine, too - not trying to
throw a monkey wrench into the process.
...Robert
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-10-16 17:57:12 | Re: BUG #5121: Segmentation Fault when using pam w/ krb5 |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-10-16 17:28:57 | Re: BUG #5123: bug in window function "last_value" |