Hi, > Postgres always was a bit hackerish, allowing slightly more then is safe. > I.e. you can define immutable function that is not really immutable, turn off > autovacuum or fsync. Why bother with safety guards here? > My opinion is that we should have this function to extract timestamp. Even if > it can return strange values for imprecise RFC implementation.
Completely agree. Users that don't like or don't need it can pretend there are no uuid_extract_time() and uuidv7(T) in Postgres. If we don't provide them however, users that need them will end up writing their own probably buggy and not compatible implementations. That would be much worse. > So +1 for erroring when you provide a timestamp outside of that range > (either too far in the past or too far in the future). > > OK, it seems like we have some consensus on ERRORing.. > > Do we have any other open items? Does v13 address all open items? Maybe let’s > compose better error message? > > +1 for erroring when ts is outside range. > > v13 looks good for me. I think we have reached a optimal compromise. Andrey, many thanks for the updated patch. LGTM, cfbot is happy and I don't think we have any open items left. So changing CF entry status back to RfC. -- Best regards, Aleksander Alekseev
