On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 03:59:24PM -0400, Derrick Stolee wrote: > I'd much rather have a consistent and proven way of specifying the > hash value (using the oid_version() helper) than to try and make a > new mechanism. To be clear, I absolutely don't think any of us should have the attitude of repeating past bad decisions for the sake of consistency. As best I can tell, our (Jonathan and I's) disagreement is on whether using "1" and "2" to identify which hash function is used by the .mtimes file is OK or not. I happen to think that it is acceptable, so the choice to continue to adopt this pattern was motivated by being consistent with a pattern that is good and works. Thanks, Taylor
