On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 02:09:29PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> writes: > > On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 16:26, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> That works for me. �But should we make a practice of writing the > >> ENTIRE SHA-ID rather than an abbreviated form, so that we could more > >> easily replace 'em later if need be? > > > I think that's a good idea. > > Just as a data point, there is already one 7-hex-digit collision in our > repository: > > Branch: master Release: REL6_1 [aaeef4dae] 1997-04-09 08:29:35 +0000 > Branch: master Release: REL6_1 [aaeef4d17] 1996-11-10 03:06:38 +0000 > > I think it's quite foolish to depend on abbreviated hashes to be unique > forever.
Good point. While a full-hash collision is of course possible, we have much more likely things that can mess us up than that :) Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fet...@gmail.com iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
