Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2024 13:41:41 -0500
From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres@jeltef.nl>,
	Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
	Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>,
	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: <Zo7V5Ry9_sDpPmXo@nathan>
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>
 <CAGECzQQcLYiAdRj5xAm1G43MtpD_rm029ziqrbpqyDdxaCoEQA@mail.gmail.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>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/Zo7V5Ry9_sDpPmXo%40nathan>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jul 10, 2024 at 11:11:13AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.)

Do you remember the general timeframe or any of the GUCs involved?  I spent
some time searching through the commit log and mailing lists, but I've thus
far only found allusions to past bad experiences with such hooks.

-- 
nathan