Re: Drop separate CRC32 implementations in ltree, tsearch,

From: Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: Drop separate CRC32 implementations in ltree, tsearch,
Date: 2005-06-02 06:46:44
Message-ID: 429EAB54.3020602@sigaev.ru
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> contrib/ltree, contrib/tsearch, and contrib/tsearch2 each contain
> implementations of CRC32 calculations. I think these are now pretty
> redundant with the CRC32 code existing in the main backend. They
> use a different CRC polynomial than the main backend code does,
> but it's hard to credit that that is an important difference.
I think no matter. Although we had experiment to choice the best hash function
and choose crc32. Other functions make much more collisions on non-engish words.

> Anyone see a reason not to rip that code out and make these modules
> use pg_crc.h/pg_crc.c instead?

contrib/tsearch is already marked as obsolete, and I think that we can remove it
away from contrib. BTW, ltree/crc32.c and tsearch2/crc32.c has small
difference: ltree variant may lower string (depend of LOWER_NODE define) before
calculation checksum.
But pg_crc counts 64-bit checksum while contrib modules needs 32. Will be
correct to use only half-value? I am afraid number of collisions will be more...

--
Teodor Sigaev E-mail: teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru
WWW: http://www.sigaev.ru/

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Neil Conway 2005-06-02 08:09:22 Re: lastval()
Previous Message Oliver Jowett 2005-06-02 06:14:04 Re: NOLOGGING option, or ?