Horton

Re: UUID v7

Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>
To: "Andrey M. Borodin" <x4mmm@yandex-team.ru>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>, Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres@gmail.com>, Nikolay Samokhvalov <samokhvalov@gmail.com>, "Kyzer Davis (kydavis)" <kydavis@cisco.com>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, Andrey Borodin <amborodin86@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, "brad@peabody.io" <brad@peabody.io>, "wolakk@gmail.com" <wolakk@gmail.com>
Date: 2023-07-10T16:50:38Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On 07.07.23 14:06, Andrey M. Borodin wrote:
> Also, I think we should discuss UUID v8. UUID version 8 provides an RFC-compatible format for experimental or vendor-specific use cases. Revision 1 of IETF draft contained interesting code for v8: almost similar to v7, but with fields for "node ID" and "rolling sequence number".
> I think this is reasonable approach, thus I attach implementation of UUID v8 per [0].

I suggest we keep this thread to v7, which has pretty straightforward 
semantics for PostgreSQL.  v8 by definition has many possible 
implementations, so you're going to have to make pretty strong arguments 
that yours is the best and only one, if you are going to claim the 
gen_uuid_v8 function name.

Commits

  1. Fix timestamp overflow in UUIDv7 implementation.

  2. Add UUID version 7 generation function.

  3. Add some UUID support functions