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 17:23:13 |
Message-ID: | 9093.1751736193@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> writes:
> On 2025/07/05 2:17, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Oh, good point. But there doesn't seem to be any ill effect from
>> making BootstrapModeMain set BootstrapProcessing a bit earlier.
> Maybe. But I noticed that your patch also moves the line "IgnoreSystemIndexes = true;"
> earlier. Why did you make this change?
It just seemed to go with the bootstrap-mode setting. But your
example shows differently:
> This could cause initdb to fail with a PANIC error when run with ignore_system_indexes=off,
> like this:
> $ initdb -D data -c ignore_system_indexes=off
> ...
> FATAL: could not open relation with OID 2703
> PANIC: cannot abort transaction 1, it was already committed
> So perhaps "IgnoreSystemIndexes = true;" should be placed after GUCs are processed?
Yeah, we should do it like that (and probably also have a comment...)
> 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.
BTW, I now realize that this is only an issue starting from v16.
Before that initdb didn't have a -c switch, so there was not a
way for people to shove random settings into it.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2025-07-05 17:34:13 | Re: [PATCH] initdb: Treat empty -U argument as unset username |
Previous Message | Jianghua Yang | 2025-07-05 16:58:09 | Re: [PATCH] initdb: Treat empty -U argument as unset username |