| From: | Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Andrey M(dot) Borodin" <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru> |
| Cc: | Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander(at)timescale(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers mailing list <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, Sergey Prokhorenko <sergeyprokhorenko(at)yahoo(dot)com(dot)au>, Przemysław Sztoch <przemyslaw(at)sztoch(dot)pl>, "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, Mat Arye <mat(at)timescaledb(dot)com>, Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Nikolay Samokhvalov <samokhvalov(at)gmail(dot)com>, Junwang Zhao <zhjwpku(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: UUID v7 |
| Date: | 2024-03-12 15:35:59 |
| Message-ID: | CAGECzQSrkZHGJqMM3sCejBNsgmyrGg=ZZ+dCc4OEfHLAfES4OA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 11 Mar 2024 at 19:27, Andrey M. Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru> wrote:
> Sorry for this long and vague explanation, if it still seems too uncertain we can have a chat or something like that. I don't think this number picking stuff deserve to be commented, because it still is quite close to random. RFC gives us too much freedom of choice.
I thought your explanation was quite clear and I agree that this
approach makes the most sense. I sent an email to the RFC authors to
ask for their feedback with you (Andrey) in the CC, because even
though it makes the most sense it does not comply with the either of
method 1 or 2 as described in the RFC.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bertrand Drouvot | 2024-03-12 15:40:59 | Re: Introduce XID age and inactive timeout based replication slot invalidation |
| Previous Message | Bharath Rupireddy | 2024-03-12 15:25:37 | Re: Introduce XID age and inactive timeout based replication slot invalidation |