Re: 64-bit hash function for hstore and citext data type

From: Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, amul sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: 64-bit hash function for hstore and citext data type
Date: 2018-11-24 11:36:37
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:

>>> I'm inclined to fix this in hstoreUpgrade rather than complicate
>>> hstore_hash with historical trivia. Also there have been no field
>>> complaints - I guess it's unlikely that there is much pg 8.4 hstore
>>> data in the wild that anyone wants to hash.

>> Changing hstoreUpgrade at this point seems like wasted/misguided effort.

Tom> Oh, cancel that --- I was having a momentary brain fade about how
Tom> that function is used. I agree your proposal is sensible.

Here's what I have queued up to push:

Andrew (irc:RhodiumToad)

Attachment Content-Type Size
0001-Fix-hstore-hash-function-for-empty-hstores-upgraded-.patch text/x-patch 4.6 KB

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2018-11-24 12:15:05 Centralize use of PG_INTXX_MIN/MAX for integer limits
Previous Message Surafel Temesgen 2018-11-24 09:28:21 Re: FETCH FIRST clause WITH TIES option