From: | Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)justatheory(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Document hashtext() and Friends? |
Date: | 2012-02-21 20:12:59 |
Message-ID: | CAEYLb_WMwOkp=60LnaV8ZsPgi1obLoNRe5_YgypHh8FBgP-UmA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 21 February 2012 20:01, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> "David E. Wheeler" <david(at)justatheory(dot)com> writes:
>> Is there a reason that hashtext() and friends are not documented?
>
> Yes. They are internal functions that exist for the convenience of the
> system, not for users. We've discussed this before, and decided that
> we don't want people to rely on them continuing to have exactly the
> current behavior. One example of a possible future change is to widen
> the results from 4 bytes to 8.
My pg_stat_statements normalisation patch actually extends the
underlying hash_any() function to support 8 byte results, exactly as
currently anticipated by comments above that function, while supplying
a compatibility macro that is used by existing hash_any() clients.
--
Peter Geoghegan http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David E. Wheeler | 2012-02-21 20:14:03 | Re: Document hashtext() and Friends? |
Previous Message | Michael Glaesemann | 2012-02-21 20:11:37 | Re: Document hashtext() and Friends? |