On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 04:07:30PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> writes: > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 02:26:15PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Yeah, I agree --- a version number is the wrong way to think about this. > > > The version number was to invalidate _all_ query hashes if the > > algorithm is slightly modified, rather than invalidating just some of > > them, which could lead to confusion. > > Color me skeptical as to the use-case for that. From users' standpoints, > the hash is mainly going to change when we change the set of parse node > fields that get hashed. Which is going to happen at every major release > and no (or at least epsilon) minor releases. So I do not see a point in > tracking an algorithm version number as such. Seems like make-work.
OK, I came up with the hash idea only to address one of your concerns about mismatched hashes for algorithm improvements/changes. Seems we might as well just document that cross-version hashes are different. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> https://momjian.us EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com The usefulness of a cup is in its emptiness, Bruce Lee
