Message-ID: <7547e524-bf5f-45ef-bcbc-59bc55dae8be@oss.nttdata.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2025 17:08:08 +0900
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: A assert failure when initdb with track_commit_timestamp=on
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com>,
 Andy Fan <zhihuifan1213@163.com>, 'Michael Paquier' <michael@paquier.xyz>,
 PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
References: <87plejmnpy.fsf@163.com>
 <1f8f703d-72e8-4d05-ab16-ff0403a1d19d@oss.nttdata.com>
 <aGXZL0oraweaENrF@paquier.xyz>
 <OSCPR01MB14966207D000875CA4F4C9FEAF543A@OSCPR01MB14966.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
 <87o6u19z9w.fsf@163.com>
 <3694f39a-7148-4197-91fe-25f3d01222b7@oss.nttdata.com>
 <OSCPR01MB1496673E2FC58836331748DB6F542A@OSCPR01MB14966.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
 <efd05511-0b1f-4800-9eca-aadbf9bf5375@oss.nttdata.com>
 <249358.1751643017@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <ac5d452d-7e9d-4643-b9e7-cb3423b04365@oss.nttdata.com>
 <262595.1751649473@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <75d59502-b571-4df8-9269-fd07cee52dd4@oss.nttdata.com>
 <9093.1751736193@sss.pgh.pa.us> <61810.1751738407@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>
In-Reply-To: <61810.1751738407@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/7547e524-bf5f-45ef-bcbc-59bc55dae8be%40oss.nttdata.com>
Precedence: bulk


On 2025/07/06 3:00, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
>> Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> writes:
>>> Or GUC ignore_system_indexes also should be treated in the same way
>>> as transaction_timeout?
> 
>> Yes, I'd say we ought to mark that GUC as don't-accept-in-bootstrap
>> too.  I've not done any research about what other GUCs can break
>> initdb, but now I'm starting to suspect there are several.
> 
> Here's a fleshed-out implementation of Hayato-san's idea.  I've
> not done anything about reverting 5a6c39b6d, nor have I done any
> checks to see if there are other GUCs we ought to mark similarly.
> (But at this point I'd be prepared to bet that there are.)

Thanks for the patch! It looks good to me.

Shouldn't we also add a TAP test to verify that initdb works correctly
with GUCs marked as GUC_NOT_IN_BOOTSTRAP?

Regards,

-- 
Fujii Masao
NTT DATA Japan Corporation