On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 2:46 AM, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 9:05 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 9:00 PM, Michael Paquier >> <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> v4 looks correct to me. Testing it through (pgbench and some custom >>> queries) I have not spotted issues. If the final decision is to use >>> 64-bit query IDs, then this patch could be pushed. >> >> Cool. Committed, thanks for the review. > > The final result looks fine for me. Thanks.
Sorry for replying so late, but I have a perhaps naive question about the hashtable handling with this new version. IIUC, the shared hash table is now created with HASH_BLOBS instead of HASH_FUNCTION, so since sizeof(pgssHashKey) != sizeof(uint32) the hash table will use tag_hash() to compute the hash key. tag_hash() uses all the bits present in the given struct, so this can be problematic if padding bits are not zeroed, which isn't garanted by C standard for local variable. WIth current pgssHashKey definition, there shouldn't be padding bits, so it should be safe. But I wonder if adding an explicit memset() of the key in pgss_store() could avoid extension authors to have duplicate entries if they rely on this code, or prevent future issue in the unlikely case of adding other fields to pgssHashKey. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers