On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 08:59:03 -0600 Paul Egli <e...@sourcegear.com> wrote:
> > Using the systemid sequence and the recordid sequence directly > > however, has a 0% probability of collision, so any rational person > > would use that directly and forgo entirely the introduction of > > uncertainty and bugs using "UUID" type crappola will cause. > > > > As Dominique said, the issue here is decentralization... Decentralization, you say, but not no centralization. If the data on those disconnected devices never came together, their keys would never conflict. We've handled this before, more than once. Ethernet cards have unique addresses. The Domain Name System supports a certain amount of wackiness, but doesn't rely on randomness. Of course, those systems were designed by competent engineers.... > and i would add, particularly in a disconnected environment and/or > one with no central authority. The method you describe does not > handle device rollbacks or cloning. I don't see how the method you describes solves anything. If two devices represent the same data -- or data belonging to the same entity, or whatever -- they need a shared identifier to represent that ownership. If that identifier is chosen randomly or taken from the devices, it will not join the information. The owner of the information will at some point have to assert their commonality: will have to apply a known, common identifier to both sets of information. --jkl _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
