On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 10:15 AM David Rowley <dgrowleyml@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