Re: A assert failure when initdb with track_commit_timestamp=on

Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> writes:
> On 2025/07/05 0:30, Tom Lane wrote:
>> As I remarked in the other thread, I don't like inventing a different
>> solution for each GUC. So if there are even two that need something
>> done, I think Hayato-san's idea has merit.

> This code seems to assume that the processing mode is switched to bootstrap before
> GUC parameters are processed. But is that actually the case?

Oh, good point. But there doesn't seem to be any ill effect from
making BootstrapModeMain set BootstrapProcessing a bit earlier.
Attached is a proof-of-concept that I've actually tested.

However, what I find with this POC is that

initdb -c transaction_timeout=10s

goes through fine, but (at least on my machine)

initdb -c transaction_timeout=1

yields

...
running bootstrap script ... ok
performing post-bootstrap initialization ... 2025-07-04 13:08:04.225 EDT [261836] FATAL: terminating connection due to transaction timeout
child process exited with exit code 1

because 1ms is not enough time to complete the post-bootstrap run.
I would argue that that's pilot error and we did exactly what the
user demanded, but is there anyone who wants to say that we should
suppress such GUCs during post-bootstrap too?

regards, tom lane