| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org,Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>,Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>,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 17:12:34 |
| Message-ID: | 95996FCC-B4A0-4C4A-919F-618E69942DF1@anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On May 12, 2017 10:05:56 AM PDT, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 12:08 AM, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> wrote:
>> 1. The hash functions as they exist today aren't portable -- they can
>> return different results on different machines. That means using
>these
>> functions for hash partitioning would yield different contents for
>the
>> same partition on different architectures (and that's bad,
>considering
>> they are logical partitions and not some internal detail).
>
>Hmm, yeah, that is bad.
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.
Andres
Andres
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-05-12 17:17:27 | Re: Hash Functions |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-05-12 17:12:01 | Re: eval_const_expresisions and ScalarArrayOpExpr |