Re: [PATCHES] Hash function for numeric (WIP)

2007-04-28 Thread Neil Conway
On Fri, 2007-04-27 at 04:09 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: I feel uncomfortable about this proposal because it will compute different hashes for values that differ only in having different numbers of trailing zeroes. Now the numeric.c code is supposed to suppress extra trailing zeroes on output, but

Re: [PATCHES] Hash function for numeric (WIP)

2007-04-28 Thread Neil Conway
Sorry for fat-fingering the previous reply -- I wanted to add: On Fri, 2007-04-27 at 10:02 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Perhaps a sufficiently robust way would be to form the hash as the XOR of each supplied digit, circular-shifted by say 3 times the digit's weight. The only objection I have to

Re: [PATCHES] actualised forgotten Magnus's patch for plpgsql MOVE statement

2007-04-28 Thread Neil Conway
On Fri, 2007-04-20 at 09:46 +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote: I refreshed Magnus's patch http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2007-02/msg00275.php from februar. Applied, thanks. BTW, I notice that the documentation for PL/PgSQL's FETCH command states that only the direction variants that

Re: [PATCHES] actualised forgotten Magnus's patch for plpgsql MOVE statement

2007-04-28 Thread Tom Lane
Neil Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: BTW, I notice that the documentation for PL/PgSQL's FETCH command states that only the direction variants that fetch a *single* row are allowed. This is not actually the case: FETCH RELATIVE 2 FROM c INTO v results in assigning the first row from c into v,

Re: [PATCHES] actualised forgotten Magnus's patch for plpgsql MOVE statement

2007-04-28 Thread Pavel Stehule
I would argue that we should likewise not allow them in plpgsql's MOVE, although this is more of a judgment call than is the case for FETCH. I just don't think it's a good idea to provide two redundant ways to do the same thing, when we might want to make one of the ways mean something else