Message-ID: <523cc094-0fe1-4e2c-9653-a3cf9cde0c49@oss.nttdata.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2024 01:02:25 +0900
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: Add a GUC check hook to ensure summarize_wal cannot be enabled
 when wal_level is minimal
To: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>,
 Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
References: <6e30082e-041b-4e31-9633-95a66de76f5d@oss.nttdata.com>
 <ZoVgXuYWbzTLXyRY@nathan>
 <802ff3d5-fdc7-4b08-9046-2e9fc5fdae0e@oss.nttdata.com>
 <CA+TgmoYPNfgAT3OubjoYSiXTb3-urOjQxT3SCEUCrRBx5g6ihA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+TgmoY8DnzWNK_xu4=NTYdxGBGnFucrEpOALnS0awMp-s_pKQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <7c1b48d8-0f08-4733-a4e6-d55f04581db7@oss.nttdata.com>
 <CA+TgmoansG0B8ayQGw9Ozee6Jawz=HFUACpO_4gp-+SFJBxiYw@mail.gmail.com>
 <Zo6YPuvTmRW3b1s7@nathan>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>
In-Reply-To: <Zo6YPuvTmRW3b1s7@nathan>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/523cc094-0fe1-4e2c-9653-a3cf9cde0c49%40oss.nttdata.com>
Precedence: bulk


On 2024/07/10 23:18, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 10, 2024 at 10:10:30AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 10, 2024 at 1:56 AM Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> wrote:
>>> I'm sure this patch is necessary as a safeguard for WAL summarization.
>>> OTOH, I also think we should apply the patch I proposed earlier
>>> in this thread, which prevents summarize_wal from being enabled
>>> when wal_level is set to minimal. This way, if there's
>>> a misconfiguration, users will see an error message and
>>> can quickly identify and fix the issue. Thought?
>>
>> I interpreted these emails as meaning that we should not proceed with
>> that approach:
>>
>> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAGECzQR2r-rHFLQr5AonFehVP8DiFH+==R2yqdBvunYnwxsXNA@mail.gmail.com
>> http://postgr.es/m/3253790.1720019802@sss.pgh.pa.us
> 
> Yeah.  I initially thought this patch might be okay, at least as a stopgap,
> but Jelte pointed out a case where it doesn't work, namely when you have
> something like the following in the config file:
> 
> 	wal_level = 'minimal'
> 	summarize_wal = 'true'
> 	wal_level = 'logical'

Unless I'm mistaken, the patch works fine in this case. If the check_hook
triggered every time a parameter appears in the configuration file,
it would mistakenly detect wal_level=minimal and summarize_wal=on together
and raise an error. However, this isn't the case. The check_hook is
designed to trigger after duplicate parameters are deduplicated.
Am I missing something?

Regards,

-- 
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION