Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > After some further thought, I propose the following approach to the > issues raised on this thread:
> 1. Allow hash functions to have a second, optional support function, > similar to what we did for btree opclasses in > c6e3ac11b60ac4a8942ab964252d51c1c0bd8845. The second function will > have a signature of (opclass_datatype, int64) and should return int64. > The int64 argument is a salt. When the salt is 0, the low 32 bits of > the return value should match what the existing hash support function > returns. Otherwise, the salt should be used to perturb the hash > calculation. +1 > 2. Introduce a new hash opfamilies here which are more faster, more > portable, and/or better in other ways than the ones we have today. This part seems, uh, under-defined and/or over-ambitious and/or unrelated to the problem at hand. What are the concrete goals? regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers