Re: [HACKERS] Small patch: Change calling convention for ShmemInitHash (and fix possible bug)

2016-03-25 Thread Aleksander Alekseev
> 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

Re: [HACKERS] Small patch: Change calling convention for ShmemInitHash (and fix possible bug)

2016-03-25 Thread Tom Lane
Michael Paquier writes: > On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 9:17 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 9:50 AM, Aleksander Alekseev >> wrote: >>> Currently this procedure has two arguments --- init_size and max_size.

Re: [HACKERS] Small patch: Change calling convention for ShmemInitHash (and fix possible bug)

2016-03-25 Thread Michael Paquier
On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 9:17 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 9:50 AM, Aleksander Alekseev > wrote: >> Currently this procedure has two arguments --- init_size and max_size. >> But since shared hash tables have fixed size there is

Re: [HACKERS] Small patch: Change calling convention for ShmemInitHash (and fix possible bug)

2016-03-25 Thread Aleksander Alekseev
> No, I think we left it that way on purpose. I don't remember the > discussion exactly, but I don't think it's hurting anything. This was a part of original dynahash optimization patch. Since that patch was about performance improvement and this concrete change is about refactoring, not

Re: [HACKERS] Small patch: Change calling convention for ShmemInitHash (and fix possible bug)

2016-03-25 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 9:50 AM, Aleksander Alekseev wrote: > I would like to continue discussion regarding changing calling > convention for ShmemInitHash procedure: > >