> On 3 Jul 2024, at 13:48, Aleksander Alekseev <aleksan...@timescale.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>> That’s a very interesting result, from the UUID POV!
>> If time is almost always advancing, using time readings instead of a counter
>> is very reasonable: we have interprocess monotonicity almost for free.
>> Though time is advancing in a very small steps… RFC assumes that we use
>> microseconds, I’m not sure it’s ok to use 10 more bits for nanoseconds…
>
> A counter is mandatory since someone can for instance change the
> system's time while the process is generating UUIDs. You can't
> generally assume that local time of the system is monotonic.
AFAIR according to RFC when time jumps backwards, we just use time microseconds
as a counter. Until time starts to advance again.
Best regards, Andrey Borodin.
