Re: [PATCHES] updated hash functions for postgresql v1

Did this change hashtext() visible to users? We have been using it quite
widely for partitioning our databases. If so then it should be marked quite
visibly in release notes as there might be others who will be hit by this.

regards
Asko

On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 11:22 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> Kenneth Marshall <ktm(at)rice(dot)edu> writes:
> > I have updated the patch posted by Jeff Davis on January 9th
> > to include the micro-patch above as well as updated the polymorphism
> > regressions tests. This applies cleanly to the latest CVS pull.
>
> Applied --- thanks for being persistent about resolving the doubts on this.
>
> One thing that apparently neither of you realized was that the
> polymorphism results were varying between bigendian and littleendian
> machines; I suppose you are using different hardware and that's why you
> didn't agree on what the results should be.
>
> Since we already agreed we were going to tolerate endianness dependence
> in the hash functions, I fixed that by adding some ORDER BYs.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
>