On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 02:09:29PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
> > On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 16:26, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> That works for me. �But should we make a practice of writing the
> >> ENTIRE SHA-ID rather than an abbreviated form, so that we could more
> >> easily replace 'em later if need be?
>
> > I think that's a good idea.
>
> Just as a data point, there is already one 7-hex-digit collision in our
> repository:
>
> Branch: master Release: REL6_1 [aaeef4dae] 1997-04-09 08:29:35 +0000
> Branch: master Release: REL6_1 [aaeef4d17] 1996-11-10 03:06:38 +0000
>
> I think it's quite foolish to depend on abbreviated hashes to be unique
> forever.
Good point. While a full-hash collision is of course possible, we
have much more likely things that can mess us up than that :)
Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com
iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate