Robert Haas <[email protected]> writes:
> So based on that theory, here's a patch.
> ...
> In short, this patch makes hashfuncs.c consistent about (1) using the
> next wider signed type to report unsigned values and (2) using the
> GetDatum macro that matches the SQL return type in width and
> signedness. Objections?
I haven't actually reviewed the patch, but your description of it sounds
sane.
One thing to think about is what will happen if someday we want to use
64-bit hash codes (a day I think is not that far away). It sounds like
you've already chosen bigint for any output field that represents a
hash code or a related value such as a mask ... but it wouldn't hurt
to look through the fields with that in mind.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list ([email protected])
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
