Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> Per previous discussion, the main problem with a uuid type is the
>> new-uuid generator function, which tends to involve a bunch of
>> not-so-portable assumptions and code. If we accept a uuid type in
>> either core or contrib, all of a sudden those portability issues are
>> our problem. I'd rather not deal with that.
>> I'd be willing to accept a core uuid type sans generator function,
>> but is that really all that useful?
> I think it would. There are plenty of client side libraries that
> generate uuid, at least we could provide a native type for them to use.
> A generator would be great too of course, but if they really need one
> they could use one of the pl languages for it.
As a follow up to this both Java and Python have uuid generators that
are built in. Which as we all know are both extremely portable languages.
Joshua D. Drake
> Joshua D. Drake
>> regards, tom lane
>> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>> TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
>> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org so that your
>> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
In response to
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2007-01-20 04:32:30|
|Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Corrupt database?|
|Previous:||From: Joshua D. Drake||Date: 2007-01-20 04:21:11|
|Subject: Re: guid/uuid datatype|