The problem is that 1) we cannot break backward compatibility, 2) making id a uuid is not sufficient because you also need to timestamp records, 3) there is a value in having simple ids.
I think one can do what you need with the current setup. I will build an example and post it shortly on a new thread. Massimo On Dec 23, 12:47 am, seeker <santi...@ananzi.co.za> wrote: > Hi Massimo, > > Simply creating a uuid field unfortunately does not prevent collisions > on primary key fields when merging the data from various databases > (with the same data structure). Re-creating the primary key on merge > is also not really an option as links to other tables are then upset. > > Would it be a very big deal to make uuid's available as an alternate > to the (default) integer id's? > > I have been discussing this type of merge scenario with a number > people of late and it actually seems to be a more common requirement > than I previously thought. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "web2py Web Framework" group. To post to this group, send email to web2py@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to web2py+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/web2py?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
