On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 10:15 AM David Rowley <dgrowle...@gmail.com> wrote: > I've come up with a new hash table implementation that I've called > generichash.
At the risk of kibitzing the least-important detail of this proposal, I'm not very happy with the names of our hash implementations. simplehash is not especially simple, and dynahash is not particularly dynamic, especially now that the main place we use it is for shared-memory hash tables that can't be resized. Likewise, generichash doesn't really give any kind of clue about how this hash table is different from any of the others. I don't know how possible it is to do better here; naming things is one of the two hard problems in computer science. In a perfect world, though, our hash table implementations would be named in such a way that somebody might be able to look at the names and guess on that basis which one is best-suited to a given task. -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
