| From: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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: | 2024-07-10 15:44:14 |
| Message-ID: | Zo6sTje4m0czRor9@nathan |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jul 10, 2024 at 11:11:13AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Please, no. We went through a ton of permutations of that kind of
> idea years ago, when it first became totally clear that cross-checks
> between GUCs do not work nicely if implemented in check_hooks.
> (You can find all the things we tried in the commit log, although
> I don't recall exactly when.)
Understood.
> A counter-example for what you just
> said is when a configuration file like the above is loaded after
> postmaster start.
I haven't tested it, but from skimming around the code, it looks like
ProcessConfigFileInternal() would deduplicate any previous entries in the
file prior to applying the values and running the check hooks. Else,
reloading a configuration file with multiple startup-only GUC entries could
fail, even without bogus GUC check hooks.
--
nathan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2024-07-10 15:54:38 | Re: Add a GUC check hook to ensure summarize_wal cannot be enabled when wal_level is minimal |
| Previous Message | Dave Cramer | 2024-07-10 15:28:49 | Re: Is it possible to create a cursor with hold using extended query protocol |