Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1ugVO1-0045In-AJ for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2025 21:27:58 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1ugVO0-00BLVV-Cs for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2025 21:27:56 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1ugVO0-00BLUO-4M for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2025 21:27:56 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([68.162.161.243]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1ugVNy-001Ghc-21 for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2025 21:27:55 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 56SLRofI768342; Mon, 28 Jul 2025 17:27:50 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Nathan Bossart cc: Laurenz Albe , mert@futo.org, pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org Subject: Re: BUG #18964: `ALTER DATABASE ... RESET ...` fails to reset extension parameters that no longer exist In-reply-to: References: <18964-ba09dea8c98fccd6@postgresql.org> <2474668.1750451081@sss.pgh.pa.us> <803ddef427b9016be04af9320925e9570d3fcc06.camel@cybertec.at> <8902b6f8d5c19f09f4a052295b9de41d9f6970b5.camel@cybertec.at> Comments: In-reply-to Nathan Bossart message dated "Mon, 28 Jul 2025 16:15:04 -0500" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <768340.1753738070.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2025 17:27:50 -0400 Message-ID: <768341.1753738070@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk Nathan Bossart writes: > I looked into how easily this back-patched to v15 (where commit 88103567c > was added), and I noticed that the ALTER SYSTEM code looks a bit different > on v15 and v16. Furthermore, I didn't see a simple way to fix it on those > versions without first back-patching commit 2d870b4. From the commit > message, it looks like Tom didn't back-patch it at the time due to a lack > of complaints. I'm currently thinking we should first back-patch that one > to at least v15, if not all supported versions, before applying my proposed > patch. Thoughts? No objection here. Now that that's a couple years old, it should have had enough time to bake. regards, tom lane