From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Guo, Adam" <adamguo(at)amazon(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jim Mlodgenski <jimmy76(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: pg_trgm comparison bug on cross-architecture replication due to different char implementation |
Date: | 2025-03-19 09:58:38 |
Message-ID: | 30fbd281-88f2-47ef-987d-6207e2bcae0e@eisentraut.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 21.02.25 20:39, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>>>> I have one question about the 0001 patch; since we add
>>>> 'default_char_signedness' field to ControlFileData do we need to bump
>>>> PG_CONTROL_VERSION? We have comments about bumping PG_CONTROL_VERSION
>>>> when changing CheckPoint struct or DBState enum so it seems likely but
>>>> I'd like to confirm just in case that we need to bump
>>>> PG_CONTROL_VERSION also when changing ControlFileData.
>>>
>>> Yes. (I'm not aware of value we get from having distinct control file version
>>> and catalog version, but we do have both.)
>>>
>>>> If we need, can
>>>> we bump it to 1800? or 1701?
>>>
>>> I'd do 1800. The pattern seems to be to bump to 1800 for the first pg_control
>>> change of the v18 cycle, then 1801, then 1802 for the third change of the
>>> cycle. That's based on this history:
>>>
>>> git log -U0 -p src/include/catalog/pg_control.h | grep -E '^(Date|\+#define PG_CONTROL_VERSION)'
>>
>> Thank you for the confirmation. That makes sense to me.
>>
>> I'll push these patches with version bumps, barring any objections or
>> further comments.
>
> Pushed.
Is there a reason why the pg_controldata and pg_resetwal output are
"Default char *data* signedness", while the rest of the patch and
description just says "char signedness"? The word "data" doesn't mean
anything here, does it?
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2025-03-19 10:03:42 | Re: Add missing PQclear for StreamLogicalLog function |
Previous Message | vignesh C | 2025-03-19 09:55:27 | Re: Add missing tab completion for VACUUM and ANALYZE with ONLY option |