"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > No doubt that can be worked around, but does anyone wish to argue that > this whole thing is a bad path to be headed down? We're not going to > gain a *whole* lot of speedup from the word-wide-hashing change, and > so maybe this type of headache isn't worth the trouble.
I have to admit to some hesitation about it. But as you point out, regarding arrays of integers, most of the things being hashed are themselves platform dependent and have different hashes. So I can't really come up with any good reason to try to keep hashes consistent across platforms. I suppose for strings it means you can't use hashtext() in user-space code if you ever think you might switch database server architectures. You're probably better off using crc32 (for which we don't provide a function :( ) for user code anyways. Why do we have this hash function anyways? Is hashany faster than a decent crc32 implementation? -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com Ask me about EnterpriseDB's 24x7 Postgres support! -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
