Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > > On 04/24/2014 08:00 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > >Tom Lane wrote: > > > > > >>This is not our fault, and I don't want us to get caught up in trying > > >>to fix a fundamentally broken concept --- which is what a generic > > >>"uuidserial" API would be. If you try to paper over the difficulties > > >>here, they'll just bite you on the rear someday. > > > > > >But we have non-colliding generation technology for OIDs in system > > >catalogs. We could try to reuse the idea in a UUID generator: grab one > > >value, try to insert; if it fails generate a new one, lather, rinse, > > >repeat. > > > > Umm, UUID stands for Universally Unique IDentifier. That would > > hardly be *universally* unique. > > I don't understand your point. I'm only replying to Tom's assertion > that UUID generation might not be all that unique after all (or, in > other words, AIUI, that the "universally unique" part of the name is > wishful thinking and not an actual property of the real thing.)
Oh, I think I see your point: it's that no matter what we do here, there would be no way to guarantee that a value we generate does not collide with any other value elsewhere (either on other uuidserial columns, or on other servers). Is that it? Because if it is, then I think the problem is that the UUID concept might be flawed yet users still want to use it, and we do no service by refusing to provide it on those grounds. Now I certainly don't want my rear bitten more than it already is, anyway. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
