Re: Drawbacks of using BYTEA for PK?
От | John Sidney-Woollett |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Drawbacks of using BYTEA for PK? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 2680.192.168.0.64.1073983805.squirrel@mercury.wardbrook.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Drawbacks of using BYTEA for PK? ("Chris Travers" <chris@travelamericas.com>) |
Список | pgsql-general |
Careful... If two (or more) clients (in the same network) are going through a firewall that performs NAT, then they could appear to have the same IP address if the NAT address pool is small (single address). Appending a sequence would help resolve that issue though. John Sidney-Woollett Chris Travers said: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alex Satrapa" <alex@lintelsys.com.au> >> As long as you don't use RFC1918 addresses, the IPv4 address(es) of the >> host should be unique for the Internet. Append/prepend a 32 bit >> timestamp and you have a 64bit unique identifier that is "universally" >> unique (to one second). > > Aarrgh... So if you have 2 inserts in the same second, you have key > collision? Why not append a sequence to that so you have: Unique address > || timestamp || sequence value. In a case such as this I can see why you > might want to use md5() to hash that value. > > Best Wishes, > Chris Travers > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo@postgresql.org >
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: