On Tue, Mar 2, 2021, at 20:57, Mark Dilger wrote: > I didn't phrase that clearly enough. I'm thinking about whether you include > the bounds information in the hash function. The current implementation of > hash_range(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS) is going to hash the lower and upper bounds, > since you didn't change it to do otherwise, so "equal" values won't always > hash the same. I haven't tested this out, but it seems you could get a > different set of rows depending on whether the planner selects a hash join.
I think this issue is solved by the empty-ranges-with-bounds-information-v2.patch I just sent, since with it, there are no semantic changes at all, lower() and upper() works like before. /Joel
