On 30.04.24 19:29, Tom Lane wrote:
>> 1) Assume that char signedness is somehow a property of bits-on-disk
>> even though it's weird. Then pg_trgm indexes are correct, but we need
>> to store char signedness in pg_control.
>> 2) Assume that char signedness is not a property of bits-on-disk.
>> Then pg_trgm indexes are buggy and need to be fixed.
>> What do you think?
> Also, the bigger picture here is the seeming assumption that "if
> we change pg_trgm then it will be safe to replicate from x86 to
> arm". I don't believe that that's a good idea and I'm unwilling
> to promise that it will work, regardless of what we do about
> char signedness. That being the case, I don't want to invest a
> lot of effort in the signedness issue. Option (1) is clearly
> a small change with little if any risk of future breakage.
But note that option 1 would prevent some replication that is currently
working.
