| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: 64-bit queryId? |
| Date: | 2017-10-04 19:12:32 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYP1QqS855HBx74WQaYboKqhPZYT6M_3rLysJpTUTsVkA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 10:11 AM, Michael Paquier
<michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 11:04 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Not really; dynahash won't merge two keys just because their hash
>> codes come out the same. But you're right; that's probably not the
>> best way to do it. TBH, why do we even have pgss_hash_fn? It seems
>> like using tag_hash would be superior.
>
> Yes, using tag_hash would be just better than any custom formula.
OK, here's v4, which does it that way.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| 64-bit-queryid-v4.patch | application/octet-stream | 11.1 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2017-10-04 19:20:15 | Re: why subplan is 10x faster then function? |
| Previous Message | Nico Williams | 2017-10-04 19:10:37 | Re: Possible SSL improvements for a newcomer to tackle |