| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, 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: | 2024-09-09 23:42:17 |
| Message-ID: | 3317883.1725925337@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> When do we set the byte on the primary server? If it's the first time
> to use the GIN index, secondary servers would have to wait for the
> primary to use the GIN index, which could be an unpredictable time or
> it may never come depending on index usages. Probably we can make
> pg_upgrade set the byte in the meta page of GIN indexes that use the
> gin_trgm_ops.
Hmm, perhaps. That plus set-it-during-index-create would remove the
need for dynamic update like I suggested. So very roughly the amount
of complexity would balance out. Do you have an idea for how we'd get
this to happen during pg_upgrade, exactly?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2024-09-09 23:45:45 | Re: Remove emode argument from XLogFileRead/XLogFileReadAnyTLI |
| Previous Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2024-09-09 23:33:26 | Re: pg_trgm comparison bug on cross-architecture replication due to different char implementation |