> On 31 Oct 2024, at 22:15, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 26, 2024 at 10:05 AM Andrey M. Borodin <x4...@yandex-team.ru> > wrote: > > I think we typically avoid this kind of check failure by assigning > uuidv7() and uuidv7(interval) different C functions that call the > common function. That is, we have pg_proc entries like: >
Done. >>> >>> It's odd to me that only uuid_extract_timestamp() supports UUID v6 in >>> spite of not supporting UUID v6 generation. I think it makes more >>> sense to support UUID v6 generation as well, if the need for it is >>> high. >> >> RFC urges to use UUIDv7 instead of UUIDv6 when possible. I'm fine with >> providing implementation, it's trivial. PFA patch with implementation. >> > > My point is that we should either support full functionality for > UUIDv6 (such as generation and extraction) or none of them. I'm not > really sure we want UUIDv6 as well, but if we want it, it should be > implemented in a separate patch. Make sense. I've removed all traces of v6. Thanks! Best regards, Andrey Borodin.
v29-0001-Implement-UUID-v7.patch
Description: Binary data
