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 1sS0cb-0035jb-1D for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 11 Jul 2024 20:42:33 +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 1sS0cZ-000am0-NB for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 11 Jul 2024 20:42:31 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1sS0cZ-000alr-DH for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Thu, 11 Jul 2024 20:42:31 +0000 Received: from mail-io1-xd2c.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2c]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1sS0cW-001b1U-QT for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Thu, 11 Jul 2024 20:42:30 +0000 Received: by mail-io1-xd2c.google.com with SMTP id ca18e2360f4ac-80557928673so68183839f.2 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2024 13:42:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1720730548; x=1721335348; 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=urqEEeEd+HOXs4V6SylwHMFt0y2lkIJiq+L3yWuR5W4=; b=EleABwzKpVpMxgcCg7k9ycri9zVFWPbK1joAs4tiFC99Hgv/kMKxe/haIui1R2fb0r xzlxXmeRRGW7Dlj599lARhBXHzcvRWKil+sfBfLEDLb9SXF3++ytWEHgXuwRo9N8N7SI aHmyn9CfpJd93uAJNoPNGi3GkVl4d35Ggo8UDRckM2fLL+Y094Oy26WHe2dARjVglwSV WTNnH33FBHlBVuNoWRI3QUBRA1Y3dLnKevUeWk95LKCuixcrJUXQuXDtLx46A/XZbDyM UUi7iQGT04zkzd2kzyYzrxmSuuyUfdqvmt948rXVZgmgfVATOdw7w9w4lm+e8BB82dfU OvIQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1720730548; x=1721335348; 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=urqEEeEd+HOXs4V6SylwHMFt0y2lkIJiq+L3yWuR5W4=; b=GYhEoQ80bECgD1EIwui/ASHGVnfnLmWCMogW8jDf7BvdYXdbYZED90eFyLrWo+U35G fwn1QJ1xVacdb0IFDg3+54nLl45jS7QTBiqPbhEY7JjcJgOLI+WJeuZkSuhvonRDLjmX VOm4stPP66/KdknO0hDadAp4dEnyq+76sHYyFELheWkyp1p/CAcipU75WZ/cj01JHXo2 FdyB991u8Le/Y+1ZziNyp098oodk34bjhH25WnnD1gWns9yXmwxh/B5iTGCZXjQ7mNdI LLWsr+0Z+vpYhTUWsWNlwsLJqNLBaRuxXpuBcrshiaM9KC9xqNOF+fy26eoWRCKmfn8T ByVA== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCU5+rQLpqqjGF3SMDNa9ysBudexivISiAdSTqyld7Ywy2yNeQG0k/ZlHCrWKetau2BBtc183jEZvXtiT8aJuvnAiwYpnYywmqYTTL2R1snzBABQ X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzONLJHoIYmmzK0dEzNrYPD0i2R+RvZ96zlivFzByRI6oIpWxDY 9gD7B1+8wHZKZqueix6m4ntb49z91lwiseDVVTPcmFC77ipxh/l4 X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGFGGv4SQ4BqwTvJvTkgh5idikRx5Ms3+SQE+XgHIo+DE9thEDwMQHPpJkBSGQC+TvoHNXGlA== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6602:600a:b0:804:760c:e47c with SMTP id ca18e2360f4ac-804761c27aamr880264639f.7.1720730547984; Thu, 11 Jul 2024 13:42:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nathan (162-195-168-172.lightspeed.stlsmo.sbcglobal.net. [162.195.168.172]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 8926c6da1cb9f-4c0b1c166fasm2017058173.127.2024.07.11.13.42.27 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 11 Jul 2024 13:42:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2024 15:42:26 -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: <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: List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk On Wed, Jul 10, 2024 at 01:41:41PM -0500, Nathan Bossart wrote: > 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. Could it be the effective_cache_size work from 2013-2014? https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAHyXU0weDECnab1pypNum-dWGwjso_XMTY8-NvvzRphzM2Hv5A%40mail.gmail.com https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAMkU%3D1zTMNZsnUV6L7aMvfJZfzjKbzAtuML3N35wyYaia9MJAw%40mail.gmail.com https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commit;h=ee1e5662d8d8330726eaef7d3110cb7add24d058 https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commit;h=2850896961994aa0993b9e2ed79a209750181b8a https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commit;h=af930e606a3217db3909029c6c3f8d003ba70920 https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=a16d421ca4fc639929bc964b2585e8382cf16e33;hp=08c8e8962f56c23c6799178d52d3b31350a0708f -- nathan