| From: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| 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: | 2017-06-01 21:45:29 |
| Message-ID: | 64a2a8c5-b491-e4e7-b1cb-6490556c8e7a@joeconway.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 06/01/2017 11:25 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2017-06-01 13:59:42 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> My personal guess is that most people will prefer the fast
>> hash functions over the ones that solve their potential future
>> migration problems, but, hey, options are good.
>
> I'm pretty sure that will be the case. I'm not sure that adding
> infrastructure to allow for something that nobody will use in practice
> is a good idea. If there ends up being demand for it, we can still go there.
>
> I think that the number of people that migrate between architectures is
> low enough that this isn't going to be a very common issue. Having some
> feasible way around this is important, but I don't think we should
> optimize heavily for it by developing new infrastructure / complicating
> experience for the 'normal' uses.
+1
Joe
--
Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com
PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises
Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2017-06-01 21:48:17 | Re: strcmp() tie-breaker for identical ICU-collated strings |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-06-01 21:41:25 | Re: [PATCH] quiet conversion warning in DatumGetFloat4 |