From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com>
cc: "Guo, Adam" <adamguo@amazon.com>,
        "pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: pg_trgm comparison bug on cross-architecture replication due to different char implementation
In-reply-to: <CAPpHfdsaqjye-gg-PN5KAyrWey7By-esajK0AWe6MjtY=o23XA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CB11ADBC-0C3F-4FE0-A678-666EE80CBB07@amazon.com> <3335675.1713884256@sss.pgh.pa.us> <CAPpHfdsaqjye-gg-PN5KAyrWey7By-esajK0AWe6MjtY=o23XA@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com>
	message dated "Tue, 30 Apr 2024 19:43:12 +0300"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <1685376.1714496091.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 12:54:51 -0400
Message-ID: <1685377.1714496091@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1685377.1714496091%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com> 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