On 2013-10-31 08:22:14 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 5:32 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > "MauMau" <maumau...@gmail.com> writes: > > Note the lack of enthusiasm for taking on maintainership of the OSSP > > code. Pushing it into core would mean that we're buying into that > > maintainership, hook line and sinker. I don't think that such a > > proposal would fly. > > ISTM that the biggest problem is that we don't have a random number > generator which generates enough bits of randomness to implement > uuid_generate_v3. I think relatively few people would cry if we > didn't support uuid_generate_v1(), and the others all look simple > enough, provided there's somewhere to get lots of random bits.
Yea, I think restricting ourselves to v3/4/5 is a sensible thing. > On Linux, it seems like we could get those bits from /dev/urandom, > though I'm not sure how efficient that would be for the case where > many UUIDs are being generated at once. But that wouldn't be very > portable. It's tempting to think that we'd need a PRNG that generates > wider values, for which we might find other application also. But I'm > not volunteering to be the one to create such a thing. We could copy ossp's implementation, it's just 200 lines and seems to have a compatible license. util-linux's libuuid is BSD as well and seems to have some windows support although that's by memory. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
