| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| 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: | 2017-05-12 17:17:27 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmoby3DYuk+AwqBDvEUGQpRYUSrKD9+dDyT1ZDWbW8+jRZw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 1:12 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> 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.
That's a good point, but the flip side is that, if we don't have such
a rule, a pg_dump of a hash-partitioned table on one architecture
might fail to restore on another architecture. Today, I believe that,
while the actual database cluster is architecture-dependent, a pg_dump
is architecture-independent. Is it OK to lose that property?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2017-05-12 17:25:56 | Re: Getting error at the time of dropping subscription and few more issues |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2017-05-12 17:12:34 | Re: Hash Functions |