On Thu, Feb 20, 2025 at 3:31 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 20, 2025 at 2:07 PM Noah Misch <n...@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
