X-Original-To: pgsql-hackers-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56157D8986 for ; Tue, 6 Sep 2005 22:15:29 -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 42416-04 for ; Wed, 7 Sep 2005 01:15:25 +0000 (GMT) Received: from redivi.com (redivi.com [64.207.133.54]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 247AAD89C6 for ; Tue, 6 Sep 2005 22:15:26 -0300 (ADT) Received: from [72.1.150.252] (helo=[192.168.0.6]) by redivi.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.43) id 1ECoX9-0001TC-89; Tue, 06 Sep 2005 18:15:28 -0700 In-Reply-To: <200509061802.51089.josh@agliodbs.com> References: <20050906135057.GA24136@granicus.if.org> <36e6829205090612575b954f38@mail.gmail.com> <3F60E55D-B558-4929-B614-C230EACFF473@redivi.com> <200509061802.51089.josh@agliodbs.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v734) Message-Id: Cc: jonah.harris@gmail.com, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, mark@mark.mielke.cc, nathan wagner From: Bob Ippolito Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 18:15:21 -0700 To: josh@agliodbs.com X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.734) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 72.1.150.252 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: bob@redivi.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: uuid type for postgres X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.1+cvs (built Mon, 23 Aug 2004 08:44:05 -0700) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on redivi.com) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.009 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.009] X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200509/300 X-Sequence-Number: 72697 On Sep 6, 2005, at 6:02 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: > Bob, People, > > Let me clarify my stance here, because it seems to be getting > misrepresented. > > Mark (and Nathan) pushed at repaired UUID type for possible > inclusion in > the core PostgreSQL distribution. I'm not opposed to that, > provided that > the portability, licensing, and bugs are worked out. Why not? We > have > ipv6 data types, after all. > > However, Mark went on to suggest that we should recommend UUID over > SERIAL > in the docs, and that we could consider dropping SERIAL entirely in > favor > of UUID: > > ---quoth Mark------------------ > I suggest that UUID be recommended in place of SERIAL for certain > classes of applications, and that it therefore belongs in the core. > UUID and SERIAL can be used together (although, once you have a > UUID, it may not be useful to also have a SERIAL). > --------------------------------- > > This was what I objected to; I believe that the use-case for UUIDs is > actually quite narrow and assert that it's a very bad idea to > promote them > to most users. I agree with you (Josh) completely, which is why I said: "If the documentation gives the user a good idea of when to use UUID and when not, I think it would be a good addition." .. the fact that the use-cases are narrow was implicit :) Everything else I talked about was just implementation details. Summary: there are (several) UUID implementations out there that are appropriately licensed and easy enough to use, and a lot of OSes ship with pretty good implementations already. Creating a decent UUID type should be relatively trivial, as far as those things go. -bob