Re: HASH_BLOBS hazards (was Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of large in-progress transactions) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: HASH_BLOBS hazards (was Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of large in-progress transactions)
Date
Msg-id e7400bd0-1aa3-1c1a-6d81-7dbffb51269f@2ndquadrant.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to HASH_BLOBS hazards (was Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of large in-progress transactions)  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 2020-12-13 17:49, Tom Lane wrote:
> 2. Don't allow a default: invent a new HASH_STRING flag, and
> require that hash_create() calls specify exactly one of HASH_BLOBS,
> HASH_STRING, or HASH_FUNCTION.  This doesn't completely fix the
> hazard of mindless-copy-and-paste, but I think it might make it
> a little more obvious.  Still requires touching a lot of calls.

I think this sounds best, and also expand the documentation of these 
flags a bit.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut
2ndQuadrant, an EDB company
https://www.2ndquadrant.com/



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: Misleading comment in prologue of ReorderBufferQueueMessage
Next
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: HASH_BLOBS hazards (was Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of large in-progress transactions)