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

On Thu, Feb 20, 2025 at 3:31 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2025 at 2:07 PM Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 10:48:29AM -0800, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > > Thank you for reviewing the patches. I've fixed these issues and
> > > attached the updated patches.
> >
> > Looks good.
> >
> > > 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.

Regards,

--
Masahiko Sawada
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com