Re: A assert failure when initdb with track_commit_timestamp=on

I wrote:
> Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> writes:
>> Or GUC ignore_system_indexes also should be treated in the same way
>> as transaction_timeout?

> Yes, I'd say we ought to mark that GUC as don't-accept-in-bootstrap
> too. I've not done any research about what other GUCs can break
> initdb, but now I'm starting to suspect there are several.

Here's a fleshed-out implementation of Hayato-san's idea. I've
not done anything about reverting 5a6c39b6d, nor have I done any
checks to see if there are other GUCs we ought to mark similarly.
(But at this point I'd be prepared to bet that there are.)

regards, tom lane