Re: pg_dump versus hash partitioning

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, Feb 1, 2023 at 4:12 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> That being the case, I don't think moving the goalposts for hash
>> function stability is going to lead to a workable solution.

> I don't see that there is any easy, clean way to solve this in
> released branches. The idea that I proposed could be implemented in
> master, and I think it is the right kind of fix, but it is not
> back-patchable.

You waved your arms about inventing some new hashing infrastructure,
but it was phrased in such a way that it wasn't clear to me if that
was actually a serious proposal or not. But if it is: how will you
get around the fact that any change to hashing behavior will break
pg_upgrade of existing hash-partitioned tables? New infrastructure
avails nothing if it has to be bug-compatible with the old. So I'm
not sure how restricting the fix to master helps us.

regards, tom lane