| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: 64-bit queryId? |
| Date: | 2017-10-05 01:00:45 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqRBVsuCjFr-O=-cSCefKd7zpBOZSxvS-KoctF9jjLodVw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 4:12 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 10:11 AM, Michael Paquier
> <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 11:04 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> Not really; dynahash won't merge two keys just because their hash
>>> codes come out the same. But you're right; that's probably not the
>>> best way to do it. TBH, why do we even have pgss_hash_fn? It seems
>>> like using tag_hash would be superior.
>>
>> Yes, using tag_hash would be just better than any custom formula.
>
> OK, here's v4, which does it that way.
v4 looks correct to me. Testing it through (pgbench and some custom
queries) I have not spotted issues. If the final decision is to use
64-bit query IDs, then this patch could be pushed.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2017-10-05 01:31:43 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix freezing of a dead HOT-updated tuple |
| Previous Message | Vaishnavi Prabakaran | 2017-10-05 00:58:46 | Re: PATCH: Batch/pipelining support for libpq |