On 2025/07/06 3:00, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
>> Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> writes:
>>> 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.
>
> Here's a fleshed-out implementation of Hayato-san's idea. I've
> not done anything about reverting 5a6c39b6d, nor have I done any
> checks to see if there are other GUCs we ought to mark similarly.
> (But at this point I'd be prepared to bet that there are.)
Thanks for the patch! It looks good to me.
Shouldn't we also add a TAP test to verify that initdb works correctly
with GUCs marked as GUC_NOT_IN_BOOTSTRAP?
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
NTT DATA Japan Corporation
