Re: [HACKERS] PostGreSQL v6.2.1 for Linux Alpha

> Take a look at utils/hash/hashfn.c:tag_hash. Is there a problem in that
> code for your platform. Is the hash getting set, or is it falling
> through the case statements? This code is clearly broken for
> sizeof(int) > 4, but I think your ints are 4, and longs are 8. I bet
> somewhere we are using a long where we should be using an int, and that
> is why only your platform is seeing it. Is this true about long vs.
> int. I can review our use of longs to see if there are problems.

OK, I have a new idea. See in utils/hash/hashfn.c:tag_hash, there is
the line:

for (; keysize > (sizeof(int) - 1); keysize -= sizeof(int),key++)
h = h * PRIME1 ^ (*key);

Now, since h is a long, shouldn't the for loop be comparing
sizeof(long)? However, key is an int*.

Comments?

--
Bruce Momjian
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us