> 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 ?
You are attacking a straw man. No one is proposing that.
> I think those who designed their code to produce or accept non standard
> UUID, should work around problems they created in first place.
We're talking about compatibility with widely-used third-party
products, not home brew. If Coldfusion or Xen whatever other product
uses a non-standard UUID format, we can choose to interoperate with it
gracefully or we can be pedantic and throw an error message. But I
doubt that Coldfusion is going to change their UUID format just
because PostgreSQL chooses to kick out a syntax error.
> Otherwise, accepting non standard forms of UUIDs is going to be just a first
> step towards making the database produce non standard forms.
Then you can argue against it when someone proposes a patch that does
that. This one doesn't.
...Robert
