| From: | Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander(at)timescale(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | "Andrey M(dot) Borodin" <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Hannu Krosing <hannuk(at)google(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: What is a typical precision of gettimeofday()? |
| Date: | 2024-07-03 08:48:44 |
| Message-ID: | CAJ7c6TO8RZJQUeCdFTgVbZFmHCgQJqDOy8vBsh3Oj05d60GcuQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
--
Best regards,
Aleksander Alekseev
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Matthias van de Meent | 2024-07-03 08:50:21 | Re: Incorrect Assert in BufFileSize()? |
| Previous Message | Dilip Kumar | 2024-07-03 08:46:08 | Re: Conflict Detection and Resolution |