Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine@hi-media.com> writes:
> Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
>> The rearrangement might be marginally nicer from a code beautification
>> point of view --- right now we're a bit inconsistent about whether
>> datatype-specific hash functions live in hashfunc.c or in the datatype's
>> utils/adt/ file. But I'm not sure that removing hashfunc.c altogether is
>> an appropriate solution to that, not least because of the loss of CVS
>> history for the functions. I'd be inclined to leave the core hash_any()
>> code where it is, if not all of these functions altogether.
> I guess someone has to talk about it: git will follow the code even when
> the file hosting it changes.
That might possibly be relevant a year from now; it is 100% irrelevant
to a change being proposed for 8.4.
regards, tom lane
