On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 2:58 AM Peter Eisentraut <pe...@eisentraut.org> wrote: > > On 21.02.25 20:39, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > >>>> 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. > > Is there a reason why the pg_controldata and pg_resetwal output are > "Default char *data* signedness", while the rest of the patch and > description just says "char signedness"? The word "data" doesn't mean > anything here, does it?
I wanted to refer to the word "data" here to the relation data stored as "char" type (without explicit signedness) into the database cluster. But I admit some inconsistency. While pg_controldata outputs "Default char data signedness", pg_control_init() SQL function outputs it as default_char_signedness. Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
