"Kevin Grittner" <kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov> writes:
> Robert Haas <robertmh...@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?
I was envisioning just using PostmasterRandom() (after initializing
the seed from time(NULL) as we do now). I don't think we need a
super-wide random number.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
