Re: pg_dump versus hash partitioning - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Geoghegan
Subject Re: pg_dump versus hash partitioning
Date
Msg-id CAH2-Wz=s6Tkpcd6M5N9+NvxQewUq3iNBWgE8c0SVJ_4htRBSXA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pg_dump versus hash partitioning  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Feb 1, 2023 at 12:39 PM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't think the fact that our *traditional* standard for how stable
> a hash function needs to be has been XYZ carries any water. Needs
> change over time, and we adapt the code to meet the new needs. Since
> we have no system for type properties in PostgreSQL -- a design
> decision I find questionable -- we tie all such properties to operator
> classes.

Are you familiar with B-Tree opclass support function 4, equalimage?
It's used to determine whether a B-Tree index can use deduplication at
CREATE INDEX time. ISTM that the requirements are rather similar here
-- perhaps even identical.

See: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/btree-support-funcs.html

-- 
Peter Geoghegan



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_dump versus hash partitioning
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_dump versus hash partitioning