Re: 64-bit hash function for hstore and citext data type
От | Andrew Gierth |
---|---|
Тема | Re: 64-bit hash function for hstore and citext data type |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 87d0qwsw4a.fsf@news-spur.riddles.org.uk обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: 64-bit hash function for hstore and citext data type (Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: 64-bit hash function for hstore and citext data type
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
>>>>> "Tomas" == Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com> writes: Tomas> I wonder if the hstore hash function is actually correct. I see Tomas> it pretty much just computes hash on the varlena representation. Tomas> The important question is - can there be two different encodings Tomas> for the same hstore value? I was going to say "no", but in fact on closer examination there is an edge case caused by the fact that hstoreUpgrade allows an _empty_ hstore from pg_upgraded 8.4 data through without modifying it. (There's also a vanishingly unlikely case involving the pgfoundry release of hstore-new.) I'm inclined to fix this in hstoreUpgrade rather than complicate hstore_hash with historical trivia. Also there have been no field complaints - I guess it's unlikely that there is much pg 8.4 hstore data in the wild that anyone wants to hash. -- Andrew (irc:RhodiumToad)
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: