Re: pg_trgm comparison bug on cross-architecture replication due to different char implementation - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: pg_trgm comparison bug on cross-architecture replication due to different char implementation
Date
Msg-id 2385726.1725662213@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pg_trgm comparison bug on cross-architecture replication due to different char implementation  (Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>)
Responses Re: pg_trgm comparison bug on cross-architecture replication due to different char implementation
Re: pg_trgm comparison bug on cross-architecture replication due to different char implementation
List pgsql-hackers
Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> writes:
> Yes, that's one way to make it work.  If we do it that way, it would be
> critical to make the ALTER EXTENSION UPDATE run before anything uses the
> index.  Otherwise, we'll run new v18 "signed char" code on a v17 "unsigned
> char" data file.  Running ALTER EXTENSION UPDATE early enough should be
> feasible, so that's fine.  Some other options:

> - If v18 "pg_dump -b" decides to emit CREATE INDEX ... gin_trgm_ops_unsigned,
>   then make it also emit the statements to create the opclass.

> - Ship pg_trgm--1.6--1.7.sql in back branches.  If the upgrade wants to use
>   gin_trgm_ops_unsigned, require the user to ALTER EXTENSION UPDATE first.
>   (In back branches, the C code behind gin_trgm_ops_unsigned could just raise
>   an error if called.)

I feel like all of these are leaning heavily on users to get it right,
and therefore have a significant chance of breaking use-cases that
were perfectly fine before.

Remind me of why we can't do something like this:

* Add APIs that allow opclasses to read/write some space in the GIN
metapage.  (We could get ambitious and add such APIs for other AMs
too, but doing it just for GIN is probably a prudent start.)  Ensure
that this space is initially zeroed.

* In gin_trgm_ops, read a byte of this space and interpret it as
    0 = unset
    1 = signed chars
    2 = unsigned chars
If the value is zero, set the byte on the basis of the native
char-signedness of the current platform.  (Obviously, a
secondary server couldn't write the byte, and would have to
wait for the primary to update the value.  In the meantime,
it's no more broken than today.)

* Subsequently, use either signed or unsigned comparisons
based on that value.

This would automatically do the right thing in all cases that
work today, and it'd provide the ability for cross-platform
replication to work in future.  You can envision cases where
transferring a pre-existing index to a platform of the other
stripe would misbehave, but they're the same cases that fail
today, and the fix remains the same: reindex.

            regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Jelte Fennema-Nio
Date:
Subject: Re: Detailed release notes
Next
From: Jelte Fennema-Nio
Date:
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL 17 release announcement draft