| From: | Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)seespotcode(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)justatheory(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Document hashtext() and Friends? |
| Date: | 2012-02-21 20:11:37 |
| Message-ID: | 84559A3A-318B-48C6-8246-4F15E19B239E@seespotcode.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Feb 21, 2012, at 15:01, Tom Lane wrote:
> "David E. Wheeler" <david(at)justatheory(dot)com> writes:
>> Is there a reason that hashtext() and friends are not documented?
>
> Yes. They are internal functions that exist for the convenience of the
> system, not for users. We've discussed this before, and decided that
> we don't want people to rely on them continuing to have exactly the
> current behavior. One example of a possible future change is to widen
> the results from 4 bytes to 8.
And hashtext *has* changed across versions, which is why Peter Eisentraut published a version-independent hash function library: https://github.com/petere/pgvihash
Michael Glaesemann
grzm seespotcode net
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2012-02-21 20:12:59 | Re: Document hashtext() and Friends? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-02-21 20:01:06 | Re: Document hashtext() and Friends? |