Jim C. Nasby wrote:
>
> A better solution is to use a combination of a timestamp and a sequence.
> Why both? Because it's possible for the clock to be set back (though
> this is something best avoided), and a sequence will eventually roll
> over.
With the default MAXVALUE of a postgresql sequence (9 quintillion or so)
you'd need a pretty amazingly fast cluster to roll one over, wouldn't you?
Of course if you choose to truncate them to something smaller they might,
but I'd see little benefit of both truncating and adding a timestamp.