From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>
cc: "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com>,
        Andy Fan <zhihuifan1213@163.com>,
        "'Michael Paquier'" <michael@paquier.xyz>,
        PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: A assert failure when initdb with track_commit_timestamp=on
In-reply-to: <75d59502-b571-4df8-9269-fd07cee52dd4@oss.nttdata.com>
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>
Comments: In-reply-to Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>
	message dated "Sun, 06 Jul 2025 01:57:36 +0900"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <9092.1751736193.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Sat, 05 Jul 2025 13:23:13 -0400
Message-ID: <9093.1751736193@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/9093.1751736193%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> writes:
> On 2025/07/05 2:17, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Oh, good point.  But there doesn't seem to be any ill effect from
>> making BootstrapModeMain set BootstrapProcessing a bit earlier.

> Maybe. But I noticed that your patch also moves the line "IgnoreSystemIn=
dexes =3D true;"
> earlier. Why did you make this change?

It just seemed to go with the bootstrap-mode setting.  But your
example shows differently:

> This could cause initdb to fail with a PANIC error when run with ignore_=
system_indexes=3Doff,
> like this:
>      $ initdb -D data -c ignore_system_indexes=3Doff
>      ...
>      FATAL:  could not open relation with OID 2703
>      PANIC:  cannot abort transaction 1, it was already committed

> So perhaps "IgnoreSystemIndexes =3D true;" should be placed after GUCs a=
re processed?

Yeah, we should do it like that (and probably also have a comment...)

> 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.

BTW, I now realize that this is only an issue starting from v16.
Before that initdb didn't have a -c switch, so there was not a
way for people to shove random settings into it.

			regards, tom lane