On 2008-10-10, at 16:01, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Well, this discussion started with the conventional wisdom about "be
> conservative in what you send and liberal in what you accept". I'd
> still resist emitting any UUID format other than the RFC-approved one,
> but I don't see anything very wrong in being able to read common
> variants.
that only depends on definition of 'common variant'. Will it be just
code that will accept letters and digits, and trying to make that into
UUID ?
I think those who designed their code to produce or accept non
standard UUID, should work around problems they created in first place.
Otherwise, accepting non standard forms of UUIDs is going to be just a
first step towards making the database produce non standard forms.
It should be easy and beneficial for someone to fix their own code
into using standard RFC-approved forms of data.
Next you'll get people asking for varchar speedups, because they would
use varchar to hold data instead of int, or other appropriate format.
My point is, database shouldn't compensate for bad design decisions in
client's software.
Just my humble 2 pennies.
--
GJ
