Re: tsearch2 changes need backpatching? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: tsearch2 changes need backpatching?
Date
Msg-id 8055.1119795265@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to tsearch2 changes need backpatching?  (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>)
Responses Re: tsearch2 changes need backpatching?
List pgsql-hackers
Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> The buildfarm member penguin (Debian, ARM) has been building the HEAD 
> branch for the most part happily since late January, but keeps failing 
> on the REL8_0_STABLE branch on tsearch2. It appears that some changes 
> made around 24-27 January fixed it for this architecture/OS. Looking in 
> the committers log, I see:
> ...
> Could one of these inadvertantly fix the problem we are seeing here?
> Do we need to backpatch to fix REL8_0_STABLE, or apply some other fix?

Nothing inadvertent about it.  The changelog entry is

2005-01-25 07:36  teodor
* contrib/tsearch2/: query.c, rank.c, ts_stat.c, tsvector.c,tsvector.h, tsvector_op.c: Change typedef struct {}
WordEntryPos;totypedef uint16 WordEntryPos according tohttp://www.pgsql.ru/db/mw/msg.html?mid=2035188Require re-fill
alltsvector fields and reindex tsvector indexes.
 

and if you check the referenced message, the change was made
specifically to deal with this portability issue.  However, we cannot
backpatch the change without forcing initdb (or at least reindex of
tsearch2 indexes), even on architectures that are not currently broken.
So I'm afraid penguin is out of luck --- the 8.0 branch has to stay
the way it is.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: contrib/rtree_gist into core system?
Next
From: Atsushi Ogawa
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] regexp_replace