Re: Change GUC hashtable to use simplehash?

John Naylor <johncnaylorls@gmail.com>

From: John Naylor <johncnaylorls@gmail.com>
To: "Anton A. Melnikov" <a.melnikov@postgrespro.ru>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>, Ants Aasma <ants.aasma@cybertec.at>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>, Junwang Zhao <zhjwpku@gmail.com>, jian he <jian.universality@gmail.com>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, Gurjeet Singh <gurjeet@singh.im>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2025-02-13T06:03:19Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →
  1. Silence warning in older versions of Valgrind

  2. Revert "Speed up tail processing when hashing aligned C strings, take two"

  3. Speed up tail processing when hashing aligned C strings, take two

  4. Teach fasthash_accum to use platform endianness for bytewise loads

  5. Add macro to disable address safety instrumentation

  6. Convert uses of hash_string_pointer to fasthash equivalent

  7. Speed up tail processing when hashing aligned C strings

  8. Add helper functions for dshash tables with string keys.

  9. Fix warnings in cpluspluscheck

  10. Further cosmetic review of hashfn_unstable.h

  11. Simplify initialization of incremental hash state

  12. Add optimized C string hashing

  13. Add inline incremental hash functions for in-memory use

  14. Make all Perl warnings fatal

On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 9:58 AM Anton A. Melnikov
<a.melnikov@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
> > Hi, my understanding was you previously tested with the revert. Did
> > you not actually test, or are you building differently for these
> > cases?
>
> My first test [1] was made at b7493e1
> while the second [2] at ecb8226a after reverting in the 235328ee.

Three weeks ago, you said "Agreed that reverting seems as a preferable
way, and here's why." I assumed that meant you tested it, so my
mistake. I'll take a look.

-- 
John Naylor
Amazon Web Services