On 14.12.22 17:09, Robert Haas wrote:
> Well, OK, I'll tentatively cast a vote in favor of adopting
> basebackup_to_shell's approach elsewhere. Or to put that in plain
> English: I think that if the input appears to be malformed, it's
> better to throw an error than to guess what the user meant. In the
> case of basebackup_to_shell there are potentially security
> ramifications to the setting involved so it seemed like a bad idea to
> take a laissez faire approach. But also, just in general, if somebody
> supplies an ssl_passphrase_command or archive_command with %<something
> unexpected>, I don't really see why we should treat that differently
> than trying to start the server with work_mem=banana.
I agree. Here is an updated patch with the error checking included.