Re: [HACKERS] PostGreSQL v6.2.1 for Linux Alpha - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: [HACKERS] PostGreSQL v6.2.1 for Linux Alpha
Date
Msg-id 199802121451.JAA24991@candle.pha.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] PostGreSQL v6.2.1 for Linux Alpha  (Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
>
> > Take a look at utils/hash/hashfn.c:tag_hash.  Is there a problem in that
> > code for your platform.  Is the hash getting set, or is it falling
> > through the case statements?  This code is clearly broken for
> > sizeof(int) > 4, but I think your ints are 4, and longs are 8.  I bet
> > somewhere we are using a long where we should be using an int, and that
> > is why only your platform is seeing it.  Is this true about long vs.
> > int.  I can review our use of longs to see if there are problems.
>
> OK, I have a new idea.  See in utils/hash/hashfn.c:tag_hash, there is
> the line:
>
>             for (; keysize > (sizeof(int) - 1); keysize -= sizeof(int),key++)
>                 h = h * PRIME1 ^ (*key);
>
> Now, since h is a long, shouldn't the for loop be comparing
> sizeof(long)?  However, key is an int*.
>
> Comments?
>

Never mind.  I think the code is good, but if someone sees a problem
with longs/ints anywhere in the code, please let's discuss it.

--
Bruce Momjian
maillist@candle.pha.pa.us

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Problem with the numbers I reported yesterday
Next
From: sferac@bo.nettuno.it
Date:
Subject: Re: [QUESTIONS] Error on PostgreSQL agregate SUM() function??