| From: | "Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Scott Marlowe" <smarlowe(at)g2switchworks(dot)com>, "John DeSoi" <desoi(at)pgedit(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Tino Wildenhain" <tino(at)wildenhain(dot)de>, "Riaan van der Westhuizen" <riaan(at)huizensoft(dot)co(dot)za>, "Postgresql-General" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: GUID for postgreSQL |
| Date: | 2005-07-27 21:03:00 |
| Message-ID: | 6BCB9D8A16AC4241919521715F4D8BCE094623@algol.sollentuna.se |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
> > This is not really a viable replacement for a GUID ==
> globally unique
> > identifier. Here global means that if I use the application in
> > multiple databases, I'm guaranteed that no two identifiers
> will be the
> > same. Using a sequence will only support uniqueness for a single
> > database.
>
> So, how can two databases, not currently talking to one
> another, guarantee that their GUIDs don't collide? using a
> large randomly generated name space only reduces the chances
> of collision, it doesn't actually guarantee it.
At least on Windows, the GUID is derived in part from the computers
primary MAC address. No, it's not a guarantee, but it's pretty unlikely
:-)
//Magnus
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Chris Travers | 2005-07-27 21:20:28 | Re: GUID for postgreSQL |
| Previous Message | Scott Marlowe | 2005-07-27 21:00:48 | Re: GUID for postgreSQL |