On May 12, 2017 10:05:56 AM PDT, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 12:08 AM, Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com> wrote:
>> 1. The hash functions as they exist today aren't portable -- they can
>> return different results on different machines. That means using
>these
>> functions for hash partitioning would yield different contents for
>the
>> same partition on different architectures (and that's bad,
>considering
>> they are logical partitions and not some internal detail).
>
>Hmm, yeah, that is bad.
Given that a lot of data types have a architecture dependent representation, it seems somewhat unrealistic and
expensiveto have a hard rule to keep them architecture agnostic. And if that's not guaranteed, then I'm doubtful it
makessense as a soft rule either.
Andres
Andres
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
