On Thu, 11 Sept 2025 at 12:00, Rahila Syed <rahilasye...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > >> >> >> BTW, we should also try to conclude on my yesterday's point as to why >> it is okay to have the same behavior for default_tablespace and >> default_table_access_method and not for this parameter? I am asking >> because if we change the current behavior, tomorrow, we can get >> complaints that one expects the old behaviour as that was similar to >> other GUCs like default_tablespace and default_table_access_method. >> > > Fair point. I haven't examined the validation of GUCs in parallel workers > closely, > but one argument for preventing parallel workers from failing due to an > incorrect > value of synchronized_standby_slots is that a select query works in this > situation > without parallel workers. > > Whereas, for incorrect values of default_tablespace and > default_table_access_method, > most commands would fail regardless of whether parallel workers are enabled. > > PFA a test for the original bug report on this thread. This applies on the > v3 version of the patch > that was shared. > Thanks for sharing the patch. I checked the test and it looks good to me. But I am not sure if we should have a new file for the test. I have added the test in the '040_standby_failover_slots_sync.pl' file along with some other tests. Also I have addressed the comments by Ashutosh in [1][2].
I have attached the updated v4 patch [1]: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAE9k0P%3Dx3J3nmSmYKmTkiFXTDKLxJkXFO4%2BVHJyNu01Od6CZfg%40mail.gmail.com [2]: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAE9k0P%3DOFMFCRy9aDGWZ3bt91tbB1WnzsAbzXN72iWBaGVuMrw%40mail.gmail.com Thanks, Shlok Kyal
v4-0001-Remove-the-validation-from-the-GUC-check-hook-and.patch
Description: Binary data
