| From: | Tommy Pavlicek <tommypav122(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | jian he <jian(dot)universality(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: | 2023-12-05 22:38:08 |
| Message-ID: | CAEhP-W_Fbxw4o8ccN22gcfktqV2yq7Bz6VfubKLJfRxWWW_aAw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Thanks.
I've attached the latest version that updates the naming in line with
the convention.
On Mon, Dec 4, 2023 at 12:46 AM jian he <jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> 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.
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| 0001-ltree-hash-v4.patch | application/octet-stream | 10.5 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Davin Shearer | 2023-12-05 23:45:24 | Re: Emitting JSON to file using COPY TO |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2023-12-05 21:56:33 | Re: [PATCH] plpython function causes server panic |