Re: BUG #5118: start-status-insert-fatal

On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 11:08 AM, Kevin Grittner
<Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Well, then Tom's idea of using a random number seems pretty solid no
>> matter how you slice it. =A0Maybe a UUID.
>
> A random number is looking like the best option. =A0I'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. =A0Do the
> libraries for that do enough to introduce entropy to compensate for
> the lost bits? =A0Any other benefit I'm missing?

I'm confused.  UUIDs throw away 6 bits?

Anyway, some smaller random number might be fine, too - not trying to
throw a monkey wrench into the process.

...Robert