From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Guo, Adam" <adamguo(at)amazon(dot)com> |
Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_trgm comparison bug on cross-architecture replication due to different char implementation |
Date: | 2024-04-23 14:57:36 |
Message-ID: | 3335675.1713884256@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Guo, Adam" <adamguo(at)amazon(dot)com> writes:
> I would like to report an issue with the pg_trgm extension on
> cross-architecture replication scenarios. When an x86_64 standby
> server is replicating from an aarch64 primary server or vice versa,
> the gist_trgm_ops opclass returns different results on the primary
> and standby.
I do not think that is a supported scenario. Hash functions and
suchlike are not guaranteed to produce the same results on different
CPU architectures. As a quick example, I get
regression=# select hashfloat8(34);
hashfloat8
------------
21570837
(1 row)
on x86_64 but
postgres=# select hashfloat8(34);
hashfloat8
------------
-602898821
(1 row)
on ppc32 thanks to the endianness difference.
> Given that this has problem has come up before and seems likely to
> come up again, I'm curious what other broad solutions there might be
> to resolve it?
Reject as not a bug. Discourage people from thinking that physical
replication will work across architectures.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2024-04-23 15:03:31 | Re: Add new protocol message to change GUCs for usage with future protocol-only GUCs |
Previous Message | Guo, Adam | 2024-04-23 14:45:20 | pg_trgm comparison bug on cross-architecture replication due to different char implementation |