Re: Saner interval hash function

From: Jaime Casanova <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Saner interval hash function
Date: 2009-04-03 22:41:12
Message-ID: 3073cc9b0904031541h58027d38lb0c3b38d380428a9@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> I don't think there's a whole lot of choice in the matter.  We have to
> patch this, and put in the next release notes "if you have any hash
> indexes on interval columns, REINDEX them after updating".  Does anyone
> see it differently, or have some brilliant idea for another solution?
>

no better idea... but i don't think is really an issue: in all active
branches hash indexes are not recommended (at least the docs says
there is no evidence that they will perform better than a btree and
establish that they are not crash-safe) so, if really there are some
in use and in an interval column (a very low combination i think) they
should be used to execute REINDEX anyway

--
Atentamente,
Jaime Casanova
Soporte y capacitación de PostgreSQL
Asesoría y desarrollo de sistemas
Guayaquil - Ecuador
Cel. +59387171157

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2009-04-03 22:45:39 question on bits32 wraparound check
Previous Message Tom Lane 2009-04-03 22:28:19 Re: GetCurrentVirtualXIDs()