> that only depends on definition of 'common variant'. Will it be just code > that will accept letters and digits, and trying to make that into UUID ?
You are attacking a straw man. No one is proposing that. > I think those who designed their code to produce or accept non standard > UUID, should work around problems they created in first place. We're talking about compatibility with widely-used third-party products, not home brew. If Coldfusion or Xen whatever other product uses a non-standard UUID format, we can choose to interoperate with it gracefully or we can be pedantic and throw an error message. But I doubt that Coldfusion is going to change their UUID format just because PostgreSQL chooses to kick out a syntax error. > Otherwise, accepting non standard forms of UUIDs is going to be just a first > step towards making the database produce non standard forms. Then you can argue against it when someone proposes a patch that does that. This one doesn't. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
