On Tue, 16 Jan 2024 at 19:17, Andrey M. Borodin <x4...@yandex-team.ru> wrote: > Jelte, what is your opinion on naming the function which extracts timestamp > from UUID v7?
I looked at a few more datatypes: json, jsonb & hstore. The get_ prefix is not used there at all, so I'm still opposed to that. But they seem to use either an _to_ or an _extract_ infix. _to_ is then used for conversion of the whole object, and _extract_ is used to extract a subset. So I think _extract_ would fit well here. On Fri, 5 Jan 2024 at 11:57, Sergey Prokhorenko <sergeyprokhore...@yahoo.com.au> wrote: > When naming functions, I would advise using the shorter abbreviation uuidv7 > from the new version of the RFC instead of uuid_v7. I also agree with that, uuid_v7 looks weird to my eyes. The RFC also abbreviates them as UUIDv7 (without a space). The more I look at it the more I also think the gen_ prefix is quite strange, and I already thought the gen_random_uuid name was quite weird. But now that we will also have a uuidv7 I think it's even stranger that one uses the name from the RFC. The name of gen_random_uuid was taken verbatim from pgcrypto, without any discussion on the list[0]: > Here is a proposed patch for this. I did a fair bit of looking around > in other systems for a naming pattern but didn't find anything > consistent. So I ended up just taking the function name and code from > pgcrypto. So currently my preference for the function names would be: - uuidv4() -> alias for gen_random_uuid() - uuidv7() - uuidv7(timestamptz) - uuid_extract_ver(uuid) - uuid_extract_var(uuid) - uuidv7_extract_time(uuid) [0]: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/6a65610c-46fc-2323-6b78-e8086340a325%402ndquadrant.com#76e40e950a44aa8b6844297e8d2efe2c