Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 12:12:08PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> Perhaps the fast-path check is a bad idea, but fixing this is not just >> a matter of removing that. If we subscribe to strcoll's worldview then >> we have to conclude that *text strings are not hashable*, because >> strings that should be "equal" may have different hash codes. > This is what strxfrm was created for, to return the sorting key for a > string. Ah. So we could redefine hashtext() to return the hash of the strxfrm value. Slow, but a lot better than giving up hash join and hash aggregation altogether... > In any case, we first need to determine which answer is correct, before > we run off trying to fix it. Agreed. regards, tom lane
