[HACKERS] Fixed length datatypes. WAS [GENERAL] UUID's as primary keys

2006-06-28 Thread Thomas Hallgren
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 01:56:47PM +0200, Thomas Hallgren wrote: A user that is trusted with installing a C-function in the backend is free to scan the process memory anyway so in what way did that increase the security? IMHO, the only relevant security in that

Re: [HACKERS] Fixed length datatypes. WAS [GENERAL] UUID's as primary keys

2006-06-28 Thread Jim C. Nasby
On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 06:39:16PM +0200, Thomas Hallgren wrote: Instead, I would like to humbly request the inclusion of a UUID datatype (or an opaque 128 bit datatype) in the core package. It's increasingly ISTM that we get enough requests for this that it's probably worth doing. -- Jim C.

Re: [HACKERS] Fixed length datatypes. WAS [GENERAL] UUID's as primary keys

2006-06-28 Thread mark
On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 06:39:16PM +0200, Thomas Hallgren wrote: Instead, I would like to humbly request the inclusion of a UUID datatype (or an opaque 128 bit datatype) in the core package. It's increasingly common and some databases (MS SQLServer) already have built in support for it. We