Re: What is a typical precision of gettimeofday()?
От | Hannu Krosing |
---|---|
Тема | Re: What is a typical precision of gettimeofday()? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAMT0RQQyk7WeArWMxA67dU5JPfAee2StAuaY0V2ymyMhKJX0EQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: What is a typical precision of gettimeofday()? ("Andrey M. Borodin" <x4mmm@yandex-team.ru>) |
Ответы |
Re: What is a typical precision of gettimeofday()?
Re: What is a typical precision of gettimeofday()? |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
We currently do something similar with OIDs where we just keep generating them and then testing for conflicts. I don't think this is the best way to do it but it mostly works when you can actually test for uniqueness, like for example in TOAST or system tables. Not sure this works even reasonably well for UUIDv7. -- Hannu On Wed, Jul 3, 2024 at 12:38 PM Andrey M. Borodin <x4mmm@yandex-team.ru> wrote: > > > > > On 3 Jul 2024, at 13:48, Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander@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 interprocessmonotonicity 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 10more 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 advanceagain. > > > Best regards, Andrey Borodin.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: