From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>,
        Benoit =?iso-8859-1?Q?Lobr=E9au?= <benoit.lobreau@gmail.com>,
        Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>,
        Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
        "Bossart,
    Nathan" <bossartn@amazon.com>,
        David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>,
        Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>,
        "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>,
        Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>,
        Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>,
        Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
Subject: Re: archive modules
In-reply-to: <20220914211746.GA2986134@nathanxps13>
References: <20220825200600.GA1465148@nathanxps13>
 <20220829224621.GB541895@nathanxps13>
 <CAPE8EZ7SQKKkreVT2Cjrheg8dChT_qSDRBS71r-r+girEMQ4bw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20220830163048.GA544233@nathanxps13> <613541.1662842656@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <20220910211046.GA2651323@nathanxps13>
 <9ee5d180-2c32-a1ca-d3d7-63a723f68d9a@enterprisedb.com>
 <20220914200305.GA2984249@nathanxps13>
 <37857474-5caa-ccb3-92a3-150ddfe851ab@enterprisedb.com>
 <2884265.1663188443@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20220914211746.GA2986134@nathanxps13>
Comments: In-reply-to Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
	message dated "Wed, 14 Sep 2022 14:17:46 -0700"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <2910704.1663193529.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2022 18:12:09 -0400
Message-ID: <2910705.1663193529@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/2910705.1663193529%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 04:47:23PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Yeah, the objection there is only to trying to enforce such
>> interrelationships in GUC hooks.  In this case it seems to me that
>> we could easily check and complain at the point where we're about
>> to use the GUC values.

> I think the cleanest way to do something like that would be to load a
> check_configured_cb that produces a WARNING.  IIRC failing in
> LoadArchiveLibrary() would just cause the archiver process to restart over
> and over.  HandlePgArchInterrupts() might need some work as well.

Hm.  Maybe consistency-check these settings in the postmaster, sometime
after we've absorbed all GUC settings but before we launch any children?
That could provide a saner implementation for the recovery_target_*
variables too.

			regards, tom lane