Re: Comment simplehash/dynahash trade-offs

From: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: James Coleman <jtc331(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Subject: Re: Comment simplehash/dynahash trade-offs
Date: 2020-08-03 00:24:55
Message-ID: CA+hUKGLE04qf0P66vJsrr=fbCUM+g38CQgPp-Q66xh=LJvG1rQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 11:42 AM David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Aug 2020 at 11:36, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > So, with the current users, we'd stand to lose more than we'd gain
> > from doing it that way.
>
> FWIW, I'd be ok with just:
>
> - * The element type is required to contain a "uint32 status" member.
> + * The element type is required to contain an integer-based
> "status" member
> + * which can store the range of values defined in the SH_STATUS enum.

Thanks for the correction. Pushed.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Noah Misch 2020-08-03 00:28:57 Re: LDAP check flapping on crake due to race
Previous Message Merlin Moncure 2020-08-03 00:18:08 dblnk_is_busy returns 1 for dead connecitons