Re: Fwd: Proposal - UUID data type

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: "Mark Mielke" <mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc>, "Kless" <jonas(dot)esp(at)googlemail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Fwd: Proposal - UUID data type
Date: 2008-07-14 19:34:15
Message-ID: 849.1216064055@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> "Mark Mielke" <mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc> writes:
>> I'm sure one or two examples must exist, but I cannot think of any. Every
>> enhancement I can think of that eventually made it into a standard, was first
>> implemented within a popular product, and then demanded as a standard to be
>> applied to all other products.

> C99? SMTP? NTP?

> It tends to be important for network protocols since there's no gain in having
> non-interoperable protocols.

Actually, the IETF's mantra has always been "rough consensus and running
code" (cf http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2031.html). Network protocols
don't get standardized in advance of a working prototype, either.

(No, I take that back: there were some that did. Ever heard of OSI?)

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2008-07-14 19:38:46 Re: Summary of some postgres portability issues
Previous Message Gregory Stark 2008-07-14 19:09:55 Re: Fwd: Proposal - UUID data type