On Mon, Aug 3, 2026 at 12:55 PM Tristan Partin <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon Aug 3, 2026 at 7:21 PM UTC, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2026 at 4:29 PM Masahiko Sawada <[email protected]> > > wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, Jun 24, 2026 at 1:10 PM Tristan Partin <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > >> > UUIDv6 is the same as UUIDv1 with some fields reordered. We already > >> > supported UUIDv1, so let's add support for UUIDv6. Previously, calls to > >> > uuid_extract_timestamp() would return NULL for UUIDv6 values. > >> > > >> > Patch 2 only adds comments. I think the bit manipulation is worthy of > >> > comments, but others may disagree. > >> > >> Thank you for the patch! > >> > >> The patch seems reasonable to me. I'll review the patch in depth. > >> > > > > I've reviewed the v1 patches and the 0001 patch looks good to me. I > > have one comment for the 0002 patch: > > > > + /* > > + * UUIDv1 splits the 60-bit Gregorian timestamp into three fields > > that > > + * are *not* stored most-significant-first (see RFC 9562 sec. 5.1): > > + * > > + * time_low (bits 0-31) octets 0-3, the least significant 32 > > bits > > + * time_mid (bits 32-47) octets 4-5, the middle 16 bits > > + * time_high (bits 48-59) octet 6 low nibble + octet 7, the most > > + * significant 12 bits (octet 6 high nibble > > + * holds the version and is masked off) > > + * > > + * Reassemble the timestamp by shifting each field back to its > > place. > > + */ > > > > pgindent destroys these field tables. We need to tell pgindent to > > leave the block alone by adding the dashed comment form: > > > > /*---------- > > * UUIDv6 is a field-compatible reordering of UUIDv1 that stores the > > ... > > *---------- > > */ > > > > Or I guess that this part doesn't necessarily need to be such a > > format. Simply writing it like follow would work too: > > > > /* > > * UUIDv1 stores the 60-bit Gregorian timestamp in three fields that > > * are *not* in most-significant-first order (RFC 9562 sec. 5.1): > > * octets 0-3 hold the least significant 32 bits, octets 4-5 the > > * middle 16, and octet 6's low nibble plus octet 7 the most > > * significant 12. Octet 6's high nibble is the version, masked off > > * below. The shifts put each field back in its place. > > */ > > Thanks for the review. I went with option 1 to fix the comments in the > patch. I think it is a bit more readable than option 2. Included is > a re-spin of the first patch, but it is equivalent to v1. I tested > pgindent myself on v2, and it left the comment block alone. >
Thank you for updating the patches. Yeah, the current explanation seems better as the terms like "time_high" matches ones the RFC uses. I'll push these patches barring any objections. Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
