| From: | "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Thomas Swan" <tswan(at)olemiss(dot)edu>, "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | "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 01:37:33 |
| Message-ID: | ECEHIKNFIMMECLEBJFIGKECECBAA.chriskl@familyhealth.com.au |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> 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 | Tom Lane | 2001-07-03 01:40:25 | Buffer access rules, and a probable bug |
| Previous Message | Alex Pilosov | 2001-07-02 22:31:50 | selecting from cursor |