Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> writes:
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 12:12:08PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Perhaps the fast-path check is a bad idea, but fixing this is not just
>> a matter of removing that. If we subscribe to strcoll's worldview then
>> we have to conclude that *text strings are not hashable*, because
>> strings that should be "equal" may have different hash codes.
> This is what strxfrm was created for, to return the sorting key for a
> string.
Ah. So we could redefine hashtext() to return the hash of the strxfrm
value. Slow, but a lot better than giving up hash join and hash
aggregation altogether...
> In any case, we first need to determine which answer is correct, before
> we run off trying to fix it.
Agreed.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
