Re: pg_trgm comparison bug on cross-architecture replication due to different char implementation
От | Peter Eisentraut |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pg_trgm comparison bug on cross-architecture replication due to different char implementation |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 30fbd281-88f2-47ef-987d-6207e2bcae0e@eisentraut.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pg_trgm comparison bug on cross-architecture replication due to different char implementation (Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: pg_trgm comparison bug on cross-architecture replication due to different char implementation
|
Список | 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?
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: