Re: Change GUC hashtable to use simplehash?
John Naylor <johncnaylorls@gmail.com>
Commits
GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits
the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources.
API reference →
-
Silence warning in older versions of Valgrind
- fde7c0164ea2 17.5 landed
- 0600d276d485 18.0 landed
-
Revert "Speed up tail processing when hashing aligned C strings, take two"
- 6555fe197914 17.3 landed
- 235328ee4ae4 18.0 landed
-
Speed up tail processing when hashing aligned C strings, take two
- a365d9e2e8c1 17.0 landed
-
Teach fasthash_accum to use platform endianness for bytewise loads
- 0c25fee35903 17.0 landed
-
Add macro to disable address safety instrumentation
- db17594ad73a 17.0 landed
-
Convert uses of hash_string_pointer to fasthash equivalent
- f956ecd0353b 17.0 landed
-
Speed up tail processing when hashing aligned C strings
- 07f0f6abfc7f 17.0 landed
-
Add helper functions for dshash tables with string keys.
- 42a1de3013ea 17.0 cited
-
Fix warnings in cpluspluscheck
- 257998508672 17.0 landed
-
Further cosmetic review of hashfn_unstable.h
- b83033c3cff5 17.0 landed
-
Simplify initialization of incremental hash state
- 9ed3ee5001b6 17.0 landed
-
Add optimized C string hashing
- 0aba2554409e 17.0 landed
-
Add inline incremental hash functions for in-memory use
- e97b672c88f6 17.0 landed
-
Make all Perl warnings fatal
- c5385929593d 17.0 cited
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