Horton

Re: Comment simplehash/dynahash trade-offs

Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
To: David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
Cc: James Coleman <jtc331@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Date: 2020-08-03T00:24:55Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 11:42 AM David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Aug 2020 at 11:36, David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> wrote:
> > So, with the current users, we'd stand to lose more than we'd gain
> > from doing it that way.
>
> FWIW, I'd be ok with just:
>
> - *       The element type is required to contain a "uint32 status" member.
> + *       The element type is required to contain an integer-based
> "status" member
> + *       which can store the range of values defined in the SH_STATUS enum.

Thanks for the correction.  Pushed.

Commits

  1. Correct comment in simplehash.h.

  2. Improve programmer docs for simplehash and dynahash.