From: | Thomas Swan <tswan(at)olemiss(dot)edu> |
---|---|
To: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
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: | 2001-07-03 01:54:01 |
Message-ID: | 3B4125B9.5080607@olemiss.edu |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I sit corrected.
*slightly humbled*
Why not do an unsigned int16 to hold your UUID generated numbers.
Ultimately, this would seem to be a more general solution and accomplish
your goals at the sametime. Or, am I completely missing something.
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
>>don't create a bazillion datatypes. Besides, 128 bit numbers are 7
>>byte integers.
>>
>
>Hang on: 128 div 8 = 16 byte integer
>
>>PostgreSQL has an int8 (8 byte integer) datatype.
>>
>
>And therefore it is a _64_ bit integer and you can't have a 256bit unique
>number in it...
>
>>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
>>violating my first sentence.} Then, you'd have the same thing (or
>>better) AND your not relying on randomness.
>>
>
>Chris
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alex Pilosov | 2001-07-03 02:27:31 | Re: selecting from cursor |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-07-03 01:51:00 | Re: selecting from cursor |