> In short: the error in Aleksander's argument is the assumption that > shared hashtables have fixed size. That's simply false.
Well this is a bit embarrassing but I have to admit that you are right. Dynahash code is a bit non-trivial to say the least (let me guess - there is no point of suggesting a patch that splits it into two or three separate implementations for each use case, right? :) and I misunderstood how it actually works. My apologies. -- Best regards, Aleksander Alekseev http://eax.me/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers