On Mon, Oct 10, 2022 at 1:17 PM Peter Eisentraut
<peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>
> On 05.10.22 20:57, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> >> What we are talking about here is, arguably, a misconfiguration, so it
> >> should result in an error.
> >
> > Okay. What do you think about something like the attached?
The intent here looks reasonable to me. However, why should the user
be able to set both archive_command and archive_library in the first
place only to later fail in LoadArchiveLibrary() per the patch? IMO,
the check_hook() is the right way to disallow any sorts of GUC
misconfigurations, no?
FWIW, I'm attaching a small patch that uses check_hook().
> That looks like the right solution to me.
>
> Let's put that into PG 16, and maybe we can consider backpatching it.
+1 to backpatch to PG 15 where the archive modules feature was introduced.
--
Bharath Rupireddy
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
