| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Andy Fan <zhihuifan1213(at)163(dot)com>, "'Michael Paquier'" <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: A assert failure when initdb with track_commit_timestamp=on |
| Date: | 2025-07-05 18:00:07 |
| Message-ID: | 61810.1751738407@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v1-disallow-setting-some-GUCs-in-bootstrap.patch | text/x-diff | 3.4 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Arseniy Mukhin | 2025-07-05 20:19:35 | Re: amcheck support for BRIN indexes |
| Previous Message | shawn wang | 2025-07-05 17:47:08 | Re: Trim the heap free memory |