public inbox for [email protected]  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed

From: Tom Lane <[email protected]>
To: Alexander Korotkov <[email protected]>
Cc: Guo, Adam <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: pg_trgm comparison bug on cross-architecture replication due to different char implementation
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 12:54:51 -0400
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPpHfdsaqjye-gg-PN5KAyrWey7By-esajK0AWe6MjtY=o23XA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<CAPpHfdsaqjye-gg-PN5KAyrWey7By-esajK0AWe6MjtY=o23XA@mail.gmail.com>

Alexander Korotkov <[email protected]> writes:
> Given this, should we try to do better with binary compatibility
> checks using ControlFileData?  AFAICS they are supposed to check if
> the database cluster is binary compatible with the running
> architecture.  But it obviously allows incompatibilities.

Perhaps.  pg_control already covers endianness, which I think
is the root of the hashing differences I showed.  Adding a field
for char signedness feels a little weird, since it's not directly
a property of the bits-on-disk, but maybe we should.

			regards, tom lane

view thread (21+ messages)  latest in thread

reply

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: [email protected]
  Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
  Subject: Re: pg_trgm comparison bug on cross-architecture replication due to different char implementation
  In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox