| From: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | baji(dot)pgdev(at)gmail(dot)com |
| Cc: | zsolt(dot)parragi(at)percona(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: uuidv7 improperly accepts dates before 1970-01-01 |
| Date: | 2026-06-26 04:57:41 |
| Message-ID: | 20260626.135741.689849099395010573.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
Thank you for the new version.
At Thu, 25 Jun 2026 08:47:27 -0500, Baji Shaik <baji(dot)pgdev(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote in
> I prefer keeping them as 3 patches since each addresses a distinct
> failure mode and is easier to review/bisect independently. That said,
> since 0002 and 0003 now share the same errdetail and are logically
> the same validation (timestamp outside valid range), I'm happy to
> merge them into one patch for v4 if preferred.
Personally, I still feel that providing the UUIDv7 timestamp domain in
an errdetail is a bit excessive. Even for infinity, I tend to think of
the issue as simply being outside the representable range, so I'm not
sure that a separate message is necessary.
That said, this feels like a matter of taste, so it would probably be
useful to hear other opinions.
Regards,
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Previous Message | Kyotaro Horiguchi | 2026-06-26 04:24:15 | Re: Set huge_page_size on 32bit system |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Previous Message | JoongHyuk Shin | 2026-06-26 04:52:08 | Re: [PATCH] Prevent repeated deadlock-check signals in standby buffer pin waits |