Re: BUG #5118: start-status-insert-fatal - Mailing list pgsql-bugs

From Kevin Grittner
Subject Re: BUG #5118: start-status-insert-fatal
Date
Msg-id 4AD8460C020000250002BA62@gw.wicourts.gov
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: BUG #5118: start-status-insert-fatal  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: BUG #5118: start-status-insert-fatal
Re: BUG #5118: start-status-insert-fatal
List pgsql-bugs
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:

> Well, then Tom's idea of using a random number seems pretty solid no
> matter how you slice it.  Maybe a UUID.

A random number is looking like the best option.  I'm not sure why I'd
want to generate a perfectly good 128 bit random number and then throw
away six of the bits to dress it up as a UUID, though.  Do the
libraries for that do enough to introduce entropy to compensate for
the lost bits?  Any other benefit I'm missing?

-Kevin

pgsql-bugs by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: BUG #5118: start-status-insert-fatal
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: BUG #5121: Segmentation Fault when using pam w/ krb5