On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 7:54 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Alexander Korotkov <aekorot...@gmail.com> writes: > > Given this, should we try to do better with binary compatibility > > checks using ControlFileData? AFAICS they are supposed to check if > > the database cluster is binary compatible with the running > > architecture. But it obviously allows incompatibilities. > > Perhaps. pg_control already covers endianness, which I think > is the root of the hashing differences I showed. Adding a field > for char signedness feels a little weird, since it's not directly > a property of the bits-on-disk, but maybe we should.
I agree that storing char signedness might seem weird. But it appears that we already store indexes that depend on char signedness. So, it's effectively property of bits-on-disk even though it affects indirectly. Then I see two options to make the picture consistent. 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? ------ Regards, Alexander Korotkov
