Re: Re: New data type: uniqueidentifier

From: Alex Pilosov <alex(at)pilosoft(dot)com>
To: Thomas Swan <tswan(at)olemiss(dot)edu>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "Dmitry G(dot) Mastrukov" <dmitry(at)taurussoft(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Re: New data type: uniqueidentifier
Date: 2001-07-02 18:39:23
Message-ID: Pine.BSO.4.10.10107021437160.3812-100000@spider.pilosoft.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, 2 Jul 2001, Thomas Swan wrote:

> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
> >Dmitry G. Mastrukov writes:
> >
> >>I've developed new data type for PostgreSQL - unique identifier - 128-bit
> >>value claims to be unique across Universe. It depends on libuuid from
> >>e2fsprogs by Theodore Ts'o.
> >>
> >
> >ISTM that this should be a function, not a data type.
> >
> I'd second the function idea: function uuid( ) returns an int8 value;
> don't create a bazillion datatypes. Besides, 128 bit numbers are 7 byte
> integers. PostgreSQL has an int8 (8 byte integer) datatype. While I
> like the UUID function idea, I'd recommend a better solution to creating
> an "unique" identifier. Why not create a serial8 datatype: int8 with an
> int8 sequence = 256bit "unique" number. {Yes, I know I'm violating my
> first sentence.} Then, you'd have the same thing (or better) AND your
> not relying on randomness.

I don't think you know what UUID is. It is NOT just a unique randon
number. There are specific rules for construction of such number, specific
rules for comparison of numbers (no, its not bit-by-bit), thus a datatype
is most appropriate answer.

-alex

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Nathan Myers 2001-07-02 18:58:15 Re: shared library strangeness?
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2001-07-02 17:42:08 Re: tab