On Thu, Nov 2, 2023 at 11:32 AM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 02, 2023 at 02:32:07PM +1100, Peter Smith wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 2, 2023 at 2:25 PM Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Checking this patch yesterday prompted me to create a new thread
> >> questioning the inconsistencies of the "GUC names in messages". In
> >> that thread, Tom Lane replied and gave some background information [1]
> >> about the GUC name embedding versus substitution. In hindsight, I
> >> think your original message was fine as-is, but there seem to be
> >> examples of every kind of style, so whatever you do would have some
> >> precedent.
> >>
> >> The patch v4 LGTM.
> >
> > To clarify, all the current code LGTM, but the patch is still missing
> > a guc_hook test case, right?
>
> - NULL, NULL, NULL
> + check_max_slot_wal_keep_size, NULL, NULL
>
> FWIW, I am +-0 with what you are proposing here. I don't quite get
> why one may want to enforce this specific GUC at upgrade.
>
I also can't think of a good reason to do so but OTOH, I can't imagine
all possible scenarios. As this setting is invalid or can cause
problems, it seems people favor preventing it. Alvaro also voted in
favor of preventing it, so we are considering to proceed with it
unless more people think otherwise.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
