Re: Opinion about macro for the uuid datatype.

From: Gevik Babakhani <pgdev(at)xs4all(dot)nl>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Opinion about macro for the uuid datatype.
Date: 2006-09-17 07:57:13
Message-ID: 1158479833.11883.2.camel@voyager.truesoftware.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Understood, Thank you :)

On Sat, 2006-09-16 at 21:23 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Gevik Babakhani <pgdev(at)xs4all(dot)nl> writes:
> > I was wondering if I should go ahead and add a macro datatype like the
> > SERIAL, only this time for the uuid.
>
> This assumes a fact not in evidence, which is that we're going to accept
> a uuid-generation function as part of core. AFAIK the only reasonably
> non-contentious part of this proposal is the ability to *store* uuids.
> Generating new ones introduces a host of portability and other issues.
>
> Considering the amount of pain involved in supporting SERIAL in the
> parser, pg_dump, etc, I'd say that adding the above is a pretty certain
> route to getting your patch rejected as too invasive. If, three or four
> versions down the road, large numbers of people are using uuid with the
> same generation function, *then* it might be time to think about
> introducing a macro type.
>
> regards, tom lane
>

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jie Zhang 2006-09-17 08:57:15 Re: Bitmap index status
Previous Message Stefan Kaltenbrunner 2006-09-17 06:42:51 Re: -HEAD planner issue wrt hash_joins on dbt3 ?