| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, Yura Sokolov <y(dot)sokolov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, David Rowley <dgrowley(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Use simplehash.h instead of dynahash in SMgr |
| Date: | 2021-06-21 15:43:37 |
| Message-ID: | 1647648.1624290217@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 10:15 AM David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> I've come up with a new hash table implementation that I've called
>> generichash.
> At the risk of kibitzing the least-important detail of this proposal,
> I'm not very happy with the names of our hash implementations.
I kind of wonder if we really need four different hash table
implementations (this being the third "generic" one, plus hash join
has its own, and I may have forgotten others). Should we instead
think about revising simplehash to gain the benefits of this patch?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2021-06-21 15:55:48 | Re: disfavoring unparameterized nested loops |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2021-06-21 15:39:42 | Re: Add version macro to libpq-fe.h |