Horton

Re: UUID v7

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: Andrey Borodin <amborodin86@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, brad@peabody.io, wolakk@gmail.com, kydavis@cisco.com, Nikolay Samokhvalov <samokhvalov@gmail.com>
Date: 2023-02-11T01:18:36Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2023-02-10 15:57:50 -0800, Andrey Borodin wrote:
>> From my POV v7 is especially needed for users. Current standard status
>> is "draft". And I'm not sure it will be accepted before our feature
>> freeze for PG16. Maybe we could provide a draft implementation in 16
>> and adjust it to the accepted version if the standard is changed? PFA
>> patch with implementation.

> 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.

			regards, tom lane

Commits

  1. Fix timestamp overflow in UUIDv7 implementation.

  2. Add UUID version 7 generation function.

  3. Add some UUID support functions