Horton

Re: Add uuid_to_base32hex() and base32hex_to_uuid() built-in functions

Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>
To: Andrey Borodin <x4mmm@yandex-team.ru>
Cc: Sergey Prokhorenko <sergeyprokhorenko@yahoo.com.au>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2025-10-27T20:09:43Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Add base32hex support to encode() and decode() functions.

  2. Allow explicit casting between bytea and uuid.

  3. Add support for base64url encoding and decoding

On Sat, Oct 25, 2025 at 11:07 AM Andrey Borodin <x4mmm@yandex-team.ru> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 25 Oct 2025, at 04:31, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Or providing
> > 'uuid_encode(uuid, format text) -> text' and 'uuid_decode(text, format
> > text) -> uuid' might make sense too, but I'm not sure.
>
> I like the idea, so I drafted a prototype for discussion.
> Though I do not see what else methods should be provided along with added one...

Thank you for drafting the patch! But I find it potentially confusing
to have different encoding methods for bytea and UUID types. I don't
see a compelling reason why the core should support base32hex
exclusively for the UUID data type, nor why base32hex should be the
only encoding method that the core provides for UUIDs (while we can
use it by default).

If we implement uuid_encode() and uuid_decode(), we might end up
creating similar encoding and decoding functions for other data types
as well, which doesn't seem like the best approach. I still believe
that extending the existing encode() and decode() functions is a
better starting point.

Regards,

-- 
Masahiko Sawada
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com