Am Montag, 18. September 2006 13:50 schrieb Gevik Babakhani: > It was My question was, "Could you do this using a domain?". The possible answers to that are "Yes" and "No", neither of which appears below, nor does "domain".
> Gevik Babakhani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I was wondering if I should go ahead and add a macro datatype like the > > SERIAL, only this time for the uuid. > > This assumes a fact not in evidence, which is that we're going to accept > a uuid-generation function as part of core. AFAIK the only reasonably > non-contentious part of this proposal is the ability to *store* uuids. > Generating new ones introduces a host of portability and other issues. > > Considering the amount of pain involved in supporting SERIAL in the > parser, pg_dump, etc, I'd say that adding the above is a pretty certain > route to getting your patch rejected as too invasive. If, three or four > versions down the road, large numbers of people are using uuid with the > same generation function, *then* it might be time to think about > introducing a macro type. > > regards, tom lane > > On Mon, 2006-09-18 at 13:47 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > Am Montag, 18. September 2006 13:28 schrieb Gevik Babakhani: > > > > Could you do this using a domain? > > > > > > Tom had a very good point about this. > > > > And that point was? -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/ ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match