Re: [PATCH] Fix ALTER SYSTEM empty string bug for GUC_LIST_QUOTE parameters
| От | Maciek Sakrejda |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: [PATCH] Fix ALTER SYSTEM empty string bug for GUC_LIST_QUOTE parameters |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CADXhmgQPRecJ2SL2nekkn1DEJCTCR+HMMMwvbgNOjJrGk2rtSg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: [PATCH] Fix ALTER SYSTEM empty string bug for GUC_LIST_QUOTE parameters (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
| Ответы |
Re: [PATCH] Fix ALTER SYSTEM empty string bug for GUC_LIST_QUOTE parameters
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Nov 4, 2025 at 8:58 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > I wrote: > > Andrei Klychkov <andrew.a.klychkov@gmail.com> writes: > >> 2. It doesn't look to me that v5 solves the original issue of a user > >> running ALTER SYSTEM SET <setting like shared_preload_libraries> = ''; , > >> then restarting the server and not getting it back online. > > > [ shrug... ] It's not supposed to "solve" that. That command is > > erroneous, and if you didn't test the setting before restarting the > > server, you shouldn't be too surprised if restart fails. > > If you are feeling excited about that specific case, I think the > correct solution would be to install a GUC check_hook for > shared_preload_libraries (and probably its siblings too). It couldn't > go so far as to actually dlopen() the list items, but it could check > that each one resolves as an accessible file. > > A potential objection is that this could result in unwanted failures > in some scenarios, say where you're restoring a dump and haven't > yet installed all the relevant extensions. I'm not quite sure if > there are realistic scenarios where that's actually a problem. > If it is, perhaps we could adjust the check_hook so it issues > WARNINGs not hard errors. > > I'm not sure it's worth the trouble though. A quick look at dfmgr.c > suggests that it'd take quite a lot of refactoring (or else code > duplication, not good) to be able to apply the library lookup process > without actually doing dlopen. In any case that would be a totally > different patch from what we are discussing here. For what it's worth, there was a patch that took a stab at this a while ago, but it ended up RWF: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/Z1kfMUoZkl9P0egB%40paquier.xyz#4a73293daf92aefbbdb43adc9688f082 I was a reviewer and I still think something like that would be useful and prevent a lot of mistakes. Thanks, Maciek
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: