Re: Comment simplehash/dynahash trade-offs

From: David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(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: 2020-08-02 23:42:00
Message-ID: CAApHDvp_sW2S6oz0ruPMD6CqzcVdZowp4kg7n+qdg=qMCaaiNg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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.

David

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thomas Munro 2020-08-03 00:12:57 Re: LDAP check flapping on crake due to race
Previous Message David Rowley 2020-08-02 23:36:45 Re: Comment simplehash/dynahash trade-offs