Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7999F64FD33 for ; Thu, 4 Sep 2008 17:06:32 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 30698-10 for ; Thu, 4 Sep 2008 17:06:28 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 951F264FCEF for ; Thu, 4 Sep 2008 17:06:28 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m84K6OUN029387; Thu, 4 Sep 2008 16:06:24 -0400 (EDT) To: Zdenek Kotala cc: Xiao Meng , pgsql-patches@postgresql.org, "Jonah H. Harris" Subject: Re: hash index improving v3 In-reply-to: <48BFDA8D.3080506@sun.com> References: <48BFDA8D.3080506@sun.com> Comments: In-reply-to Zdenek Kotala message dated "Thu, 04 Sep 2008 14:54:37 +0200" Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2008 16:06:23 -0400 Message-ID: <29386.1220558783@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=none X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200809/39 X-Sequence-Number: 7054 Zdenek Kotala writes: > I performed code review and see my comments. Thanks for the comments. I've incorporated all of these into an updated patch that I'm preparing, except for > Why not define new datatype for example HashKey instead of uint32? This seems like a good idea, but I think we should do it as a separate, cosmetic-cleanup patch. It'll touch a lot of parts of access/hash/ that the current patch doesn't need to change, and thus complicate reviewing. regards, tom lane