| From: | Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Marti Raudsepp <marti(at)juffo(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: UUIDs in core WAS: 9.4 Proposal: Initdb creates a single table |
| Date: | 2014-04-26 19:17:38 |
| Message-ID: | 535C0652.9020402@nasby.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 4/25/14, 12:58 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Well, I've already had collisions with UUID-OSSP, in production, with
> only around 20 billion values. So clearly there aren't 122bits of true
> randomness in OSSP. I can't speak for other implementations because I
> haven't tried them.
Or perhaps you should be buying lottery tickets? ;)
Can you write this up in a blog post? I've argued with people more than once about why it's a bad idea to trust on "1 in a bazillion" odds to protect your data (though, usually in the context of SHA1), and it'd be good to be able to point at a real world example of this failing.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Data Architect jim(at)nasby(dot)net
512.569.9461 (cell) http://jim.nasby.net
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim Nasby | 2014-04-26 19:32:58 | Re: Perfomance degradation 9.3 (vs 9.2) for FreeBSD |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-04-26 19:11:54 | Re: small typo in src/backend/access/transam/xlog.c |