Re: Proposal: PageLayout footprint

Zdenek Kotala wrote:
> It is what I don't know. controlfile only says "incorrect checksum in
> control file". It seems to me that CRC computing does not work
> correctly. I check pg_control footprint and it is same for 32/64. It
> seems to me a false positive complain, but ...

Endianness perhaps? Per comment in ControlFileData:

> * This data is used to check for hardware-architecture compatibility of
> * the database and the backend executable. We need not check endianness
> * explicitly, since the pg_control version will surely look wrong to a
> * machine of different endianness, but we do need to worry about MAXALIGN
> * and floating-point format. (Note: storage layout nominally also
> * depends on SHORTALIGN and INTALIGN, but in practice these are the same
> * on all architectures of interest.)

> Footprint switch should help show you why it is incompatible and also
> protect you during development to break some structure.

Apparently the footprint switch didn't provide any insight into the
Sparc 32/64-bit issue, so I'm not too impressed..

--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com