On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 9:02 AM, k...@rice.edu <k...@rice.edu> wrote: > By using all 64-bits of the hash that we currently calculate, instead > of the current use of 32-bits only, the collision probabilities are > very low.
That's probably true, but I'm not sure it's worth worrying about - one-in-four-billion is a pretty small probability. On the broader issue, Peter's argument here seems to boil down to "there is probably a reason why this is useful" and Tom's argument seems to boil down to "i don't want to expose it without knowing what that reason is". Peter may well be right, but that doesn't make Tom wrong. If we are going to expose this, we ought to be able to document why we have it, and right now we can't, because we don't *really* know what it's good for, other than raising awareness of the theoretical possibility of collisions, which doesn't seem like quite enough. On another note, I think this is a sufficiently major change that we ought to add Peter's name to the "Author" section of the pg_stat_statements documentation. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers