| From: | Andrey Borodin <amborodin86(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, brad(at)peabody(dot)io, wolakk(at)gmail(dot)com, kydavis(at)cisco(dot)com, Nikolay Samokhvalov <samokhvalov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: UUID v7 |
| Date: | 2023-02-11 02:53:25 |
| Message-ID: | CAAhFRxgoe132ZD138mjWz_qD_2AgEwC6FnFn49Qx3ZKi==NMdw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 5:14 PM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>
> Perhaps we should name the function something like
> gen_time_ordered_random_uuid() instead? That gives us a bit more flexibility
> about what uuid version we generate. And it might be easier for users, anyway.
I think users would be happy with any name.
> Still not sure what version we'd best use for now. Perhaps v8?
V8 is just a "custom data" format. Like "place whatever you want".
Though I agree that its sample implementation looks to be better.
On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 5:18 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> > Hm. It seems somewhat worrisome to claim something is a v7 UUID when it might
> > turn out to not be one.
>
> I think there is no need to rush this into v16. Let's wait for the
> standardization process to play out.
>
Standardization per se does not bring value to users. However, I agree
that eager users can just have it today as an extension and be happy
with it [0].
Maybe it's fine to wait a year for others...
Best regards, Andrey Borodin.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2023-02-11 02:58:30 | Re: daitch_mokotoff module |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2023-02-11 02:09:42 | Re: Time delayed LR (WAS Re: logical replication restrictions) |