| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Guo, Adam" <adamguo(at)amazon(dot)com>, "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: | 2024-05-03 12:20:21 |
| Message-ID: | c15efbd9-fb92-4e72-8ffa-20dccf5515ad@eisentraut.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 30.04.24 19:29, Tom Lane wrote:
>> 1) Assume that char signedness is somehow a property of bits-on-disk
>> even though it's weird. Then pg_trgm indexes are correct, but we need
>> to store char signedness in pg_control.
>> 2) Assume that char signedness is not a property of bits-on-disk.
>> Then pg_trgm indexes are buggy and need to be fixed.
>> What do you think?
> 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.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2024-05-03 12:27:40 | Re: A failure in prepared_xacts test |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2024-05-03 11:54:11 | Re: [PATCH] json_lex_string: don't overread on bad UTF8 |