| From: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Pedro Gimeno" <pgsql-003(at)personal(dot)formauri(dot)es>, <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Gerhard Leykam" <gel123(at)sealsystems(dot)de>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #5118: start-status-insert-fatal |
| Date: | 2009-10-16 15:08:12 |
| Message-ID: | 4AD8460C020000250002BA62@gw.wicourts.gov |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Well, then Tom's idea of using a random number seems pretty solid no
> matter how you slice it. Maybe a UUID.
A random number is looking like the best option. I'm not sure why I'd
want to generate a perfectly good 128 bit random number and then throw
away six of the bits to dress it up as a UUID, though. Do the
libraries for that do enough to introduce entropy to compensate for
the lost bits? Any other benefit I'm missing?
-Kevin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-10-16 15:11:00 | Re: BUG #5121: Segmentation Fault when using pam w/ krb5 |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2009-10-16 14:42:05 | Re: BUG #5118: start-status-insert-fatal |