On 2025/07/06 3:00, Tom Lane wrote:
I wrote:
Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@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
