Re: [PATCH] ltree hash functions

From: jian he <jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tommy Pavlicek <tommypav122(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: daniel(at)yesql(dot)se, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ltree hash functions
Date: 2023-12-04 06:46:44
Message-ID: CACJufxHJKxQ=foYiOzbtd2mSTn-CXyKd6za0eR73moToUA6uJg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Dec 1, 2023 at 8:44 AM Tommy Pavlicek <tommypav122(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>
> Patch updated for those comments (and a touch of cleanup in the tests) attached.

it would be a better name as hash_ltree than ltree_hash, similar logic
applies to ltree_hash_extended.
that would be the convention. see: https://stackoverflow.com/a/69650940/15603477

Other than that, it looks good.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrei Lepikhov 2023-12-04 06:50:34 Re: POC, WIP: OR-clause support for indexes
Previous Message Pavel Stehule 2023-12-04 06:41:58 proposal: plpgsql - OPEN LOCAL statement