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?
