From: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | 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>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(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: | 2024-05-03 22:36:05 |
Message-ID: | 362570f3-1031-4f8e-a077-81c103200b64@joeconway.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 5/3/24 11:44, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 03.05.24 16:13, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> writes:
>>> On 30.04.24 19:29, Tom Lane wrote:
>>>> Also, the bigger picture here is the seeming assumption that "if
>>>> we change pg_trgm then it will be safe to replicate from x86 to
>>>> arm". I don't believe that that's a good idea and I'm unwilling
>>>> to promise that it will work, regardless of what we do about
>>>> char signedness. That being the case, I don't want to invest a
>>>> lot of effort in the signedness issue. Option (1) is clearly
>>>> a small change with little if any risk of future breakage.
>>
>>> But note that option 1 would prevent some replication that is currently
>>> working.
>>
>> The point of this thread though is that it's working only for small
>> values of "work". People are rightfully unhappy if it seems to work
>> and then later they get bitten by compatibility problems.
>>
>> Treating char signedness as a machine property in pg_control would
>> signal that we don't intend to make it work, and would ensure that
>> even the most minimal testing would find out that it doesn't work.
>>
>> If we do not do that, it seems to me we have to buy into making
>> it work. That would mean dealing with the consequences of an
>> incompatible change in pg_trgm indexes, and then going through
>> the same dance again the next time(s) similar problems are found.
>
> Yes, that is understood. But anecdotally, replicating between x86-64 arm64 is
> occasionally used for upgrades or migrations. In practice, this appears to have
> mostly worked. If we now discover that it won't work with certain index
> extension modules, it's usable for most users. Even if we say, you have to
> reindex everything afterwards, it's probably still useful for these scenarios.
+1
I have heard similar anecdotes, and the reported experience goes even further --
many such upgrade/migration uses, with exceedingly rare reported failures.
--
Joe Conway
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Rowley | 2024-05-04 01:14:16 | Re: Support tid range scan in parallel? |
Previous Message | David Zhang | 2024-05-03 22:29:45 | Re: wrong comment in libpq.h |