> > I don't see how this improves the situation, but will just make it more
> > difficult to add a new field that requires padding in the future.
> >
> > If we are documenting either way, I rather that we just document the need
> > to pass a key by reference, which is the pattern used in other areas
> > ( see pgss_store and entry_alloc in pg_stat_statements.c )
> >
> > Others may have a different opinion.
>
> Yeah, I do care about the size of the hash key. So if someone goes on
> and proposes the addition of a new field while we already have 8 bytes
> for the object ID, that can itself be the hash of something else
> because we area already set up for life in terms of value friction, we
> will have an interesting debate.
Just to confirm, you are saying we are unlikely to ever add a new field
to the key. Is that correct?
--
Sami Imseih
Amazon Web Services (AWS)
