From: | Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl> |
---|---|
To: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Add a GUC check hook to ensure summarize_wal cannot be enabled when wal_level is minimal |
Date: | 2024-07-03 14:45:10 |
Message-ID: | CAGECzQR2r-rHFLQr5AonFehVP8DiFH+==R2yqdBvunYnwxsXNA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 3 Jul 2024 at 16:30, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> IME these sorts of GUC hooks that depend on the value of other GUCs tend to
> be quite fragile. This one might be okay because wal_level defaults to
> 'replica' and because there is an additional check in postmaster.c, but
> that at least deserves a comment.
Yeah, this hook only works because wal_level isn't PGC_SIGHUP and
indeed because there's a check in postmaster.c. It now depends on the
ordering of these values in your config which place causes the error
message on startup.
This hits the already existing check:
summarize_wal = 'true'
wal_sumarizer = 'minimal'
This hits the new check:
summarize_wal = 'true'
wal_sumarizer = 'minimal'
And actually this would throw an error from the new check even though
the config is fine:
wal_sumarizer = 'minimal'
summarize_wal = 'true'
wal_sumarizer = 'logical'
> This sort of thing comes up enough that perhaps we should add a
> better-supported way to deal with GUCs that depend on each other...
+1. Sounds like we need a global GUC consistency check
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jelte Fennema-Nio | 2024-07-03 14:46:21 | Re: Add a GUC check hook to ensure summarize_wal cannot be enabled when wal_level is minimal |
Previous Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2024-07-03 14:41:40 | Re: Add a GUC check hook to ensure summarize_wal cannot be enabled when wal_level is minimal |