> On 24 Apr 2025, at 19:10, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> I thought about that but intentionally left it as-is, because that
> would force zeroing of the space reserved for the hashtable name too.
> That's unnecessary, and since it'd often be odd-sized it might result
> in a less efficient fill loop.
Well, that's just few hundred bytes at most. But I agree that makes sense.
Best regards, Andrey Borodin.
