X-Original-To: pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6F74D1B366 for ; Tue, 27 Jul 2004 04:28:48 -0300 (ADT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 50019-05 for ; Tue, 27 Jul 2004 07:28:44 +0000 (GMT) Received: from rock.spider.ru (rock.spider.ru [62.183.34.226]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA850D1B2A6 for ; Tue, 27 Jul 2004 04:28:40 -0300 (ADT) Received: from rock (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rock (Postfix) with SMTP id 3DAC92743C for ; Tue, 27 Jul 2004 11:28:39 +0400 (MSD) Received: from sad.localnet.ru (sad.localnet.ru [10.0.0.72]) by rock.spider.ru (Postfix) with ESMTP id 808D32743B for ; Tue, 27 Jul 2004 11:28:38 +0400 (MSD) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" From: sad Organization: IT To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org Subject: surrogate keys and replication. Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 10:36:49 +0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.4.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <200407271036.49581.sad@bankir.ru> X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 tagged_above=0.0 required=5.0 tests= X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200407/230 X-Sequence-Number: 18482 Josh, I agree to treat this case as a (1) convinence. But it is still very cpecific, more than just simplifying FKs=20 And you have said about general GUID problem. Let we disscuss this problem ? I hope to here good ideas from you again. Now I solve the GUID problem, with one sequence of IDs on the main server. The clients ask the server to lease some IDs via special (application-layer= )=20 protocol. Server remembers who and when and what IDs have took. (in terms of segments [a..b],[c..d]... etc)