| From: | Baji Shaik <baji(dot)pgdev(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(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: | 2026-06-25 13:47:27 |
| Message-ID: | CA+fm-RN9UgAG2ew7T0Gum8RtZ4ZbyYvOLyyqAiuTWhsGEn3_zw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jun 24, 2026 at 9:19 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:
> From a user's perspective, it seems sufficient to know that the
> shifted timestamp falls outside the range supported by UUID v7. As a
> translator, I'm not particularly enthusiastic about adding more
> message variants when the distinction is not particularly useful to
> users.
>
Thanks for the feedback, Kyotaro. Good point. Attached v3 with all boundary
checks
using a single shared errdetail:
"UUID version 7 supports timestamps from 1970-01-01 to approximately year
10889."
0001 - Reject infinite intervals
0002 - Reject pre-epoch timestamps (with overflow-safe epoch conversion)
0003 - Reject timestamps beyond the 48-bit limit
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.
Thanks,
Baji Shaik.
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v3-0002-Reject-pre-epoch-timestamps-in-uuidv7-interval.patch | application/octet-stream | 5.0 KB |
| v3-0001-Reject-infinite-intervals-in-uuidv7-interval.patch | application/octet-stream | 3.3 KB |
| v3-0003-Reject-timestamps-beyond-48-bit-limit-in-uuidv7-i.patch | application/octet-stream | 3.0 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2026-06-25 13:53:25 | Re: BUG #19483: pg_upgrade fails with orphan records in pg_init_priv catalog table |
| Previous Message | Sebastiaan Mannem | 2026-06-25 13:43:32 | Re: Out-of-Cycle release? (was Re: BUG #19490: Streaming standby on 16.14 stops applying WAL on MultiXactOffsetSLRU when primary is 16.8) |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nitin Jadhav | 2026-06-25 13:48:01 | Re: [PATCH] Fix minRecoveryPoint not advanced past checkpoint in CreateRestartPoint |
| Previous Message | Dilip Kumar | 2026-06-25 13:45:02 | Re: Proposal: Conflict log history table for Logical Replication |