Re: Improve checks for GUC recovery_target_xid

Thanks for having a look at this!

On 2/26/26 14:20, Hüseyin Demir wrote:
>
> The following grammar can be changed by adding "without epoch must be greater than or equal to %u"
> + GUC_check_errdetail("\"%s\" without epoch must greater than or equal to %u.",
> + "recovery_target_xid",
> + FirstNormalTransactionId);

Oops - fixed!

> The comment on the lower-bound XID test says # Timeline target out of min range — should be # XID target out of min range.

I have fixed this and made the comments more consistent overall.

> When it comes to *endp validations I suppose the validation passes when we provide recovery_target_xid = '-1'. This passes the endp validation and FirstNormalTransactionId checks. Is it a valid approach to allow negative values to this GUC ?
>
> When -1 is provided the following checks allow them to be a valid GUC.

Yeah, -1 should not be allowed here. I've updated the code to error on
negative numbers but probably we should import strtou64_strict from the
front end code or use strtou32_strict, though that needs to be discussed
separately.

Thanks,
-David