| From: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Yugo Nagata <nagata(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>, amul sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: Hash Functions |
| Date: | 2017-05-12 17:35:45 |
| Message-ID: | 000acab1-1500-f7e9-b109-18c077f428df@joeconway.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 05/12/2017 10:17 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 1:12 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> Given that a lot of data types have a architecture dependent
>> representation, it seems somewhat unrealistic and expensive to have
>> a hard rule to keep them architecture agnostic. And if that's not
>> guaranteed, then I'm doubtful it makes sense as a soft rule
>> either.
>
> That's a good point, but the flip side is that, if we don't have
> such a rule, a pg_dump of a hash-partitioned table on one
> architecture might fail to restore on another architecture. Today, I
> believe that, while the actual database cluster is
> architecture-dependent, a pg_dump is architecture-independent. Is it
> OK to lose that property?
Not from where I sit.
Joe
--
Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com
PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises
Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2017-05-12 17:38:26 | Re: Cached plans and statement generalization |
| Previous Message | Konstantin Knizhnik | 2017-05-12 17:35:26 | Re: Cached plans and statement generalization |