| From: | Miles Elam <miles(dot)elam(at)productops(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Sequence vs UUID |
| Date: | 2023-01-29 05:02:47 |
| Message-ID: | CAALojA_+ar2YQcB7u+LGXEO_6P9j=Me-XQhMUvALa+=rYSGzXQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Sat, Jan 28, 2023 at 8:02 PM Ron <ronljohnsonjr(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Then it's not a Type 4 UUID, which is perfectly fine; just not random.
Yep, which is why it really should be re-versioned to UUIDv8 to be
pedantic. In everyday use though, almost certainly doesn't matter.
> Also, should now() be replaced by clock_timestamp(), so that it can be
> called multiple times in the same transaction?
Not necessary. Instead of 122 bits of entropy, you get 106 bits of
entropy and a new incremented prefix every minute. now() vs
clock_timestamp() wouldn't make a substantive difference. Should still
be reasonably safe against the birthday paradox for more than a
century when creating more than a million UUIDs per second.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | hirose shigeo (廣瀬 繁雄 □SWC○ACT) | 2023-01-30 05:00:43 | How to control pg_catalog results for each users? |
| Previous Message | Ron | 2023-01-29 04:02:36 | Re: Sequence vs UUID |