From: Hannu Krosing <hannu@tm.ee>
To: Neil Tiffin <ntiffin@earthlink.net>
Cc: Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA@wien.spardat.at>
Cc: 'Tom Lane' <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: gnue-geas@lists.gnue.org
Subject: Re: Proposal: OID wraparound: summary and proposal
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2001 10:09:24 +0500
Message-ID: <3B6F7804.5A0CD46A@tm.ee> (raw)
References: <11C1E6749A55D411A9670001FA6879633683C1@sdexcsrv1.f000.d0188.sd.spardat.at >
<p05100301b79051af3171@[192.168.0.6]>
Neil Tiffin wrote:
>
> I would just like to comment that for our project, GNU Enterprise, we
> use our own 128 bit object ID that is unique (UUID) for every row in
> all tables.
>
> It seems to me, without having looked into it, that having both a
> PostgreSQL UID and our own 128 bit objectid (UUID) is redundant and
> slows the whole process down. But we are storing object data in the
> database and require and absolutely unique objectid. We are planning
> for enterprise usage and expect to need 128 bits to uniquely define
> our objects.
Is it just an 128-bit int from a sequence or does it have some internal
structure ?
What kind of enterprise do you expect to have more than
18 446 744 073 709 551 615 of objects that can uniquely be identified
by 64 bits ?
-------------
Hannu
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: hannu@tm.ee, ntiffin@earthlink.net, ZeugswetterA@wien.spardat.at, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, gnue-geas@lists.gnue.org
Subject: Re: Proposal: OID wraparound: summary and proposal
In-Reply-To: <3B6F7804.5A0CD46A@tm.ee>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox