On May 12, 2017 10:05:56 AM PDT, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 12:08 AM, Jeff Davis <pg...@j-davis.com> wrote: >> 1. The hash functions as they exist today aren't portable -- they can >> return different results on different machines. That means using >these >> functions for hash partitioning would yield different contents for >the >> same partition on different architectures (and that's bad, >considering >> they are logical partitions and not some internal detail). > >Hmm, yeah, that is bad.
Given that a lot of data types have a architecture dependent representation, it seems somewhat unrealistic and expensive to have a hard rule to keep them architecture agnostic. And if that's not guaranteed, then I'm doubtful it makes sense as a soft rule either. Andres Andres -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
