| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
| Cc: | "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Pedro Gimeno" <pgsql-003(at)personal(dot)formauri(dot)es>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Gerhard Leykam" <gel123(at)sealsystems(dot)de> |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #5118: start-status-insert-fatal |
| Date: | 2009-10-16 15:24:58 |
| Message-ID: | 6811.1255706698@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> writes:
> 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 was envisioning just using PostmasterRandom() (after initializing
the seed from time(NULL) as we do now). I don't think we need a
super-wide random number.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2009-10-16 15:32:41 | Re: BUG #5118: start-status-insert-fatal |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-10-16 15:11:00 | Re: BUG #5121: Segmentation Fault when using pam w/ krb5 |