> > I don't see how this improves the situation, but will just make it more > > difficult to add a new field that requires padding in the future. > > > > If we are documenting either way, I rather that we just document the need > > to pass a key by reference, which is the pattern used in other areas > > ( see pgss_store and entry_alloc in pg_stat_statements.c ) > > > > Others may have a different opinion. > > Yeah, I do care about the size of the hash key. So if someone goes on > and proposes the addition of a new field while we already have 8 bytes > for the object ID, that can itself be the hash of something else > because we area already set up for life in terms of value friction, we > will have an interesting debate.
Just to confirm, you are saying we are unlikely to ever add a new field to the key. Is that correct? -- Sami Imseih Amazon Web Services (AWS)
