Am Montag, 18. September 2006 13:50 schrieb Gevik Babakhani:
> It was
My question was, "Could you do this using a domain?". The possible answers to
that are "Yes" and "No", neither of which appears below, nor does "domain".
> Gevik Babakhani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I was wondering if I should go ahead and add a macro datatype like the
> > SERIAL, only this time for the uuid.
> This assumes a fact not in evidence, which is that we're going to accept
> a uuid-generation function as part of core. AFAIK the only reasonably
> non-contentious part of this proposal is the ability to *store* uuids.
> Generating new ones introduces a host of portability and other issues.
> Considering the amount of pain involved in supporting SERIAL in the
> parser, pg_dump, etc, I'd say that adding the above is a pretty certain
> route to getting your patch rejected as too invasive. If, three or four
> versions down the road, large numbers of people are using uuid with the
> same generation function, *then* it might be time to think about
> introducing a macro type.
> regards, tom lane
> On Mon, 2006-09-18 at 13:47 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > Am Montag, 18. September 2006 13:28 schrieb Gevik Babakhani:
> > > > Could you do this using a domain?
> > >
> > > Tom had a very good point about this.
> > And that point was?
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not