On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 5:14 PM Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > > Perhaps we should name the function something like > gen_time_ordered_random_uuid() instead? That gives us a bit more flexibility > about what uuid version we generate. And it might be easier for users, anyway. I think users would be happy with any name.
> Still not sure what version we'd best use for now. Perhaps v8? V8 is just a "custom data" format. Like "place whatever you want". Though I agree that its sample implementation looks to be better. On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 5:18 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > > 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. > Standardization per se does not bring value to users. However, I agree that eager users can just have it today as an extension and be happy with it [0]. Maybe it's fine to wait a year for others... Best regards, Andrey Borodin. [0] https://github.com/x4m/pg_uuid_next
