Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2023-11-21 16:42:55 +0700, John Naylor wrote:
>> The strlen call required for hashbytes() is not free. The lack of
>> mixing in the (probably inlined after 0001) previous hash function can
>> remedied directly, as in the attached:
> I doubt this is a good hashfunction. For short strings, sure, but after
> that... I don't think it makes sense to reduce the internal state of a hash
> function to something this small.
GUC names are just about always short, though, so I'm not sure you've
made your point? At worst, maybe this with 64-bit state instead of 32?
regards, tom lane
