On Wed, Nov 01, 2023 at 09:57:18PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
>> Hmm ... if we're doing it ourselves, I suppose we've got to consider
>> it supported :-(. But I'm still wondering how many seldom-used
>> code paths didn't get the message. An example here is that this
>> could lead to GetConfigOptionResetString returning NULL, which
>> I think is outside its admittedly-vague API spec.
>
> After digging around for a bit, I think part of the problem is a lack
> of a clearly defined spec for what should happen with NULL string GUCs.
> In the attached v3, I attempted to remedy that by adding a comment in
> guc_tables.h (which is maybe not the best place but I didn't see a
> better one). That led me to a couple more changes beyond what you had.
What if we disallowed NULL string GUCs in v17? That'd simplify the spec
and future-proof against similar bugs, but it might also break a fair
number of extensions. If there aren't any other reasons to continue
supporting it, maybe it's the right long-term approach, though.
--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
