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 1sRZUU-00GaoQ-Qe for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 10 Jul 2024 15:44:22 +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 1sRZUT-006cvj-Dg for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 10 Jul 2024 15:44:21 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1sRZUT-006cva-3a for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Wed, 10 Jul 2024 15:44:21 +0000 Received: from mail-il1-x12b.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::12b]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1sRZUQ-001PcK-8A for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Wed, 10 Jul 2024 15:44:20 +0000 Received: by mail-il1-x12b.google.com with SMTP id e9e14a558f8ab-38373958e94so3009135ab.0 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2024 08:44:17 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1720626256; x=1721231056; darn=lists.postgresql.org; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=MW+i1jOFC2Q7oi/6xAo2tDmrz2tY3ZnxYK2Gk5qe8Uc=; b=OEjEtUQT804YbXmMdMhC88lBxMht+Vih20l7Ffoz4LTKFGD8ykWbWUFOCJbi3ZSUxC M5nrX+6URRAAFxSGL0GeB8DaDNF5nmHZaBOcWLtBI7VO6QgLb40dvIl4Du43OJiva9u2 weOY6yB8uDDmR8UYnBT9aR/dS6fHRY5UMXljcNHYqf8OhNP7UxGuEJpxq7ckFMkWyBgn ffaReOMTNMBIfOwlevQmJrsmJbfByRtRocK3FTtESn4RtdWrP3LsLJyI6jEPMFYv4r2c A4v+ZGzosYHVZKHJ3Eei/gP3OvUeo4P6ff8iJx7duu6SDvUCIESWfH6UAYrJmZoeewsH A04w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1720626256; x=1721231056; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=MW+i1jOFC2Q7oi/6xAo2tDmrz2tY3ZnxYK2Gk5qe8Uc=; b=JF8QeEztRLQO4qD+moi0OHoKVocv1+9X0ilX8pxdSfyr6KhdtfERIE1ZWYaDqI4IA0 a44YSseLlK6V4mIJv5WB6876LJU49+t+ThP1cHIo7o6tw3EOMbBwGhxLbcXHjvuHpGBq FPe0Em6jmD2JOeQpZTJKV3XH408NrYr9My1di91S76bGCqHlvy2zzTb9KosIWoMdtXH4 SFj2XN4qbyNy9X9M8zoFQWiPQZC35GoC5C6KTSPmBi92zZQ3KF96EsLrw/odaQupP7Ph 1LZsbisJttvam2yqL/yeWPXpuJZvb+eaylwg9pQKKfasmKy+9Umwb58DhF+3Nrpwj+9z hJeg== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCX+yA/QpXUBpwxjGbNxQxXjbdqbUeosiV754JrGcAwhmKjFtpwN0P+8PpDvoh5yNC5ogee0I7+iiwG+NotmkDfct7jd/JJE4y/EJjcv37BwUbXJ X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzlRuMbxOb872cIIY/eLxrjZR+wujrt9eJZBlUzXeJbMVy2+w1u lA6vBtBGx1RCAd9vDblGQfS7HC+aqXy2A6zTeSSEC6CNMACBdjBg X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEgQYP6a/+fsVltmO7N2u6T1KBvIuxdAJ/nkvGPYWV5bBKzDULj1i1YP64XuP6BVnjt2awdWQ== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6e02:214e:b0:380:db2c:4d53 with SMTP id e9e14a558f8ab-38d09f059b0mr281645ab.3.1720626256034; Wed, 10 Jul 2024 08:44:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nathan (162-195-168-172.lightspeed.stlsmo.sbcglobal.net. [162.195.168.172]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id e9e14a558f8ab-38a4946152asm10158635ab.24.2024.07.10.08.44.15 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 10 Jul 2024 08:44:15 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2024 10:44:14 -0500 From: Nathan Bossart To: Tom Lane Cc: Jelte Fennema-Nio , Robert Haas , Fujii Masao , pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org Subject: Re: Add a GUC check hook to ensure summarize_wal cannot be enabled when wal_level is minimal Message-ID: References: <6e30082e-041b-4e31-9633-95a66de76f5d@oss.nttdata.com> <802ff3d5-fdc7-4b08-9046-2e9fc5fdae0e@oss.nttdata.com> <7c1b48d8-0f08-4733-a4e6-d55f04581db7@oss.nttdata.com> <1744272.1720624273@sss.pgh.pa.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1744272.1720624273@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk On Wed, Jul 10, 2024 at 11:11:13AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Please, no. We went through a ton of permutations of that kind of > idea years ago, when it first became totally clear that cross-checks > between GUCs do not work nicely if implemented in check_hooks. > (You can find all the things we tried in the commit log, although > I don't recall exactly when.) Understood. > A counter-example for what you just > said is when a configuration file like the above is loaded after > postmaster start. I haven't tested it, but from skimming around the code, it looks like ProcessConfigFileInternal() would deduplicate any previous entries in the file prior to applying the values and running the check hooks. Else, reloading a configuration file with multiple startup-only GUC entries could fail, even without bogus GUC check hooks. -- nathan