Thread

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →
  1. Reject "ALTER DATABASE/USER ... RESET foo" with invalid GUC name.

  1. ALTER DATABASE RESET with unexistent guc doesn't report an error

    Vitaly Davydov <v.davydov@postgrespro.ru> — 2025-09-11T08:35:36Z

    Dear Hackers,
    
    I've found that ALTER DATABASE RESET with an unexistent guc does nothing without
    error reporting.
    
    ALTER DATABASE SET reports an error if guc doesn't exist:
    
    > alter database mydb set myparam to 10;
    ERROR:  unrecognized configuration parameter "myparam"
    
    ALTER DATABASE RESET doesn't report an error at all:
    
    > alter database mydb reset myparam;
    ALTER DATABASE
    
    I think it is a wrong behaviour. I believe, ALTER DATABASE RESET should report
    an error in this case. I've also think that ALTER DATABASE RESET TABLESPACE does
    nothing without any error reporting. I've prepared a simple patch to handle this
    case (master branch). It adds a check for guc existence with error reporting.
    
    With best regards,
    Vitaly
    
  2. Re: ALTER DATABASE RESET with unexistent guc doesn't report an error

    Kirill Reshke <reshkekirill@gmail.com> — 2025-09-11T12:07:29Z

    Hi!
    
    On Thu, 11 Sept 2025 at 13:35, Vitaly Davydov <v.davydov@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
    > I've also think that ALTER DATABASE RESET TABLESPACE does
    > nothing without any error reporting.
    
    I can see that ALTER DATABASE RESET TABLESPACE indeed does not change
    dattablespace.
    Documentation also lacks any information about support of something
    like this. [0]
    
    This test case looks like just an oversight of 0844b3968985
    I think we can remove "support" for ALTER DATABASE RESET TABLESPACE.
    
    LGTM
    
    
    [0] https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/sql-alterdatabase.html
    
    
    -- 
    Best regards,
    Kirill Reshke
    
    
    
    
  3. Re: ALTER DATABASE RESET with unexistent guc doesn't report an error

    Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@kurilemu.de> — 2025-09-11T14:27:36Z

    On 2025-Sep-11, Kirill Reshke wrote:
    
    > I think we can remove "support" for ALTER DATABASE RESET TABLESPACE.
    
    What about ALTER USER RESET TABLESPACE?
    
    -- 
    Álvaro Herrera        Breisgau, Deutschland  —  https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
    "Computing is too important to be left to men." (Karen Spärck Jones)
    
    
    
    
  4. Re: ALTER DATABASE RESET with unexistent guc doesn't report an error

    Kirill Reshke <reshkekirill@gmail.com> — 2025-09-11T15:00:03Z

    On Thu, 11 Sept 2025 at 19:27, Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@kurilemu.de> wrote:
    >
    > On 2025-Sep-11, Kirill Reshke wrote:
    >
    > > I think we can remove "support" for ALTER DATABASE RESET TABLESPACE.
    >
    > What about ALTER USER RESET TABLESPACE?
    >
    > --
    > Álvaro Herrera        Breisgau, Deutschland  —  https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
    > "Computing is too important to be left to men." (Karen Spärck Jones)
    
    Does this feature work?
    
    ```
    reshke=# alter user u1 set tablespace to tb2;
    ERROR:  unrecognized configuration parameter "tablespace"
    ```
    
    Also this:
    
    ```
    reshke=# alter table ss reset tablespace ;
    ERROR:  syntax error at or near "tablespace"
    LINE 1: alter table ss reset tablespace ;
                                 ^
    ```
    
    "tablespace" is tab-completed after 'alter table ss reset <TAB>' which
    is a least strange
    
    
    -- 
    Best regards,
    Kirill Reshke
    
    
    
    
  5. Re: ALTER DATABASE RESET with unexistent guc doesn't report an error

    Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2025-09-11T16:18:40Z

    =?utf-8?Q?=C3=81lvaro?= Herrera <alvherre@kurilemu.de> writes:
    > On 2025-Sep-11, Kirill Reshke wrote:
    >> I think we can remove "support" for ALTER DATABASE RESET TABLESPACE.
    
    > What about ALTER USER RESET TABLESPACE?
    
    Yeah, I think you're right.  The complaint is fundamentally that
    these two cases behave differently:
    
    regression=# ALTER DATABASE regression RESET bogus;
    ERROR:  unrecognized configuration parameter "bogus"
    regression=# ALTER DATABASE postgres RESET bogus;
    ALTER DATABASE
    
    the unobvious-to-the-user reason being that "regression" has a
    pg_db_role_setting entry and "postgres" does not.  But there's
    also no error for
    
    regression=# ALTER USER postgres RESET bogus;
    ALTER ROLE
    
    and by the same logic there should be.  I think though that
    the proposed patch addresses both cases.
    
    Looking at the patch, the delta in database.out raises
    another question:
    
     ALTER DATABASE regression_tbd RENAME TO regression_utf8;
     ALTER DATABASE regression_utf8 SET TABLESPACE regress_tblspace;
     ALTER DATABASE regression_utf8 RESET TABLESPACE;
    +ERROR:  unrecognized configuration parameter "tablespace"
     ALTER DATABASE regression_utf8 CONNECTION_LIMIT 123;
    
    The author of this bit of test script evidently thought that
    ALTER ... RESET TABLESPACE is the inverse of ALTER ... SET TABLESPACE,
    and what we are seeing is that it is not.  That may be a bug in
    itself, but it's not what Vitaly is on about, IIUC.
    
    			regards, tom lane
    
    
    
    
  6. Re: ALTER DATABASE RESET with unexistent guc doesn't report an error

    Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2025-09-12T22:12:47Z

    I wrote:
    > Looking at the patch, the delta in database.out raises
    > another question:
    >  ALTER DATABASE regression_tbd RENAME TO regression_utf8;
    >  ALTER DATABASE regression_utf8 SET TABLESPACE regress_tblspace;
    >  ALTER DATABASE regression_utf8 RESET TABLESPACE;
    > +ERROR:  unrecognized configuration parameter "tablespace"
    >  ALTER DATABASE regression_utf8 CONNECTION_LIMIT 123;
    > The author of this bit of test script evidently thought that
    > ALTER ... RESET TABLESPACE is the inverse of ALTER ... SET TABLESPACE,
    > and what we are seeing is that it is not.  That may be a bug in
    > itself, but it's not what Vitaly is on about, IIUC.
    
    That was in fact a test bug, now corrected at 4adb0380b.
    I've substituted a more on-point test case, wordsmithed the
    comment a little bit, and pushed it.
    
    Thanks for the report and patch!
    
    			regards, tom lane