[PATCH] Add a check_hook for output_plugin_libraries

From: Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Cc: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: [PATCH] Add a check_hook for output_plugin_libraries
Date: 2026-09-18 21:04:49
Message-ID: CAOYmi+kBsG5rNRb1j2VjgTKg8HY90e7vSvZPLeouiAc6nXP9XA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi all,

Fujii-san noted in [1] that the new output_plugin_libraries GUC
doesn't have its syntax validated until it's actually used. This is
only a problem if a DBA/superuser makes a mistake, but it would be
really annoying for them to hit it, and it contradicts an assumption I
made inside the new pg_upgrade check. Attached is a patch to fix that.

This isn't ready for backpatching yet, because the new test is added
in a place that doesn't exist in some of the older branches. I'll look
for a better location, but if anyone has a preference off the bat, let
me know.

For PG20 onwards, I think it'd be really nice to enforce that all
GUC_LIST_QUOTE variables must at least pass SplitGUCList() validation
if they don't provide their own explicit check_hook. We have other
code and comments implying that clients don't have to worry about this
case; an example is in [2].

Thanks,
--Jacob

[1] https://postgr.es/m/CAHGQGwG81iHN46mY_19Bne5RuKfAjH4dOnQ7-8i%3D7KYJk_0rAg%40mail.gmail.com
[2] https://postgr.es/m/CAOYmi%2B%3DTomajOOr3OkshSMrNWERAc9fT1je_TEy6Z1UseNy-hA%40mail.gmail.com

Attachment Content-Type Size
v1-0001-WIP-Add-a-check_hook-for-output_plugin_libraries.patch application/octet-stream 4.8 KB

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Okanovic, Haris 2026-09-18 21:11:30 Re: [PATCH] Reduce LWLockWaitListLock() cache-line contention with adaptive spin reads
Previous Message Corey Huinker 2026-09-18 20:59:52 Re: Credits For v19