Thread
Commits
Same data as JSON:
GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits
the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources.
API reference →
-
Improve tests for recovery_target_timeline GUC.
- 2007df43332b 19 (unreleased) landed
-
Improve validation of recovery_target_xid GUC values.
- bffd7130e942 19 (unreleased) landed
-
Improve checks for GUC recovery_target_xid
David Steele <david@pgbackrest.org> — 2026-02-20T05:41:59Z
Hackers, Currently check_recovery_target_xid() converts invalid values to 0. So, for example, the following configuration added to postgresql.conf followed by a startup: recovery_target_xid = 'bogus' recovery_target_xid = '1.1' recovery_target_xid = '0' ... does not generate an error but recovery does not complete. There are many values that can prevent recovery from completing but we should at least catch obvious misconfiguration by the user. The origin of the problem is that we do not perform a range check in the GUC value passed-in for recovery_target_xid. This commit improves the situation by using adding end checking to strtou64() and by providing stricter range checks. Some test cases are added for the cases of an incorrect or a lower-bound timeline value, checking the sanity of the reports based on the contents of the server logs. Also add a comment that truncation of the input value is expected since users will generally be using the output from pg_current_xact_id() (or similar) to set recovery_target_xid (just as our tests do). This patch was promised in [1] -- here at last! Regards, -David [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/cf04b7c6-7774-4ffb-86f5-ca85462d5fd6%40pgbackrest.org
-
Re: Improve checks for GUC recovery_target_xid
Hüseyin Demir <huseyin.d3r@gmail.com> — 2026-02-26T07:20:18Z
Hi David, The approach LGTM and checked the previous patch too. I have a few things to add. The following grammar can be changed by adding "without epoch must be greater than or equal to %u" + GUC_check_errdetail("\"%s\" without epoch must greater than or equal to %u.", + "recovery_target_xid", + FirstNormalTransactionId); Secondly, The comment on the lower-bound XID test says # Timeline target out of min range — should be # XID target out of min range. +# Timeline target out of min range +$node_standby->append_conf('postgresql.conf', + "recovery_target_xid = '0'"); + When it comes to *endp validations I suppose the validation passes when we provide recovery_target_xid = '-1'. This passes the endp validation and FirstNormalTransactionId checks. Is it a valid approach to allow negative values to this GUC ? When -1 is provided the following checks allow them to be a valid GUC. + /* + * This cast will remove the epoch, if any + */ + xid = (TransactionId) strtou64(*newval, &endp, 0); + + if (*endp != '\0' || errno == EINVAL || errno == ERANGE) + { + GUC_check_errdetail("\"%s\" is not a valid number.", + "recovery_target_xid"); + return false; + } Regards. -
Re: Improve checks for GUC recovery_target_xid
Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> — 2026-02-27T01:12:43Z
On Fri, Feb 20, 2026 at 2:42 PM David Steele <david@pgbackrest.org> wrote: > > Hackers, > > Currently check_recovery_target_xid() converts invalid values to 0. So, > for example, the following configuration added to postgresql.conf > followed by a startup: > > recovery_target_xid = 'bogus' > recovery_target_xid = '1.1' > recovery_target_xid = '0' > > ... does not generate an error but recovery does not complete. There are > many values that can prevent recovery from completing but we should at > least catch obvious misconfiguration by the user. +1 > The origin of the problem is that we do not perform a range check in the > GUC value passed-in for recovery_target_xid. This commit improves the > situation by using adding end checking to strtou64() and by providing > stricter range checks. Some test cases are added for the cases of an > incorrect or a lower-bound timeline value, checking the sanity of the > reports based on the contents of the server logs. > > Also add a comment that truncation of the input value is expected since > users will generally be using the output from pg_current_xact_id() (or > similar) to set recovery_target_xid (just as our tests do). > > This patch was promised in [1] -- here at last! Thanks for the patch! + GUC_check_errdetail("\"%s\" without epoch must greater than or equal to %u.", "must greater" shiould be "must be greater"? "without epoch" seems not necessary to me. + /* + * This cast will remove the epoch, if any + */ + xid = (TransactionId) strtou64(*newval, &endp, 0); Would it be better to use strtouint32_strict() instead of strtou64()? That would allow us to detect invalid XID values larger than 2^32 and report an error, similar to what pg_resetwal -x does. Regards, -- Fujii Masao -
Re: Improve checks for GUC recovery_target_xid
David Steele <david@pgbackrest.org> — 2026-03-04T05:07:22Z
Thanks for having a look at this! On 2/26/26 14:20, Hüseyin Demir wrote: > > The following grammar can be changed by adding "without epoch must be greater than or equal to %u" > + GUC_check_errdetail("\"%s\" without epoch must greater than or equal to %u.", > + "recovery_target_xid", > + FirstNormalTransactionId); Oops - fixed! > The comment on the lower-bound XID test says # Timeline target out of min range — should be # XID target out of min range. I have fixed this and made the comments more consistent overall. > When it comes to *endp validations I suppose the validation passes when we provide recovery_target_xid = '-1'. This passes the endp validation and FirstNormalTransactionId checks. Is it a valid approach to allow negative values to this GUC ? > > When -1 is provided the following checks allow them to be a valid GUC. Yeah, -1 should not be allowed here. I've updated the code to error on negative numbers but probably we should import strtou64_strict from the front end code or use strtou32_strict, though that needs to be discussed separately. Thanks, -David -
Re: Improve checks for GUC recovery_target_xid
David Steele <david@pgbackrest.org> — 2026-03-04T05:11:48Z
On 2/27/26 08:12, Fujii Masao wrote: > On Fri, Feb 20, 2026 at 2:42 PM David Steele <david@pgbackrest.org> wrote: > > + GUC_check_errdetail("\"%s\" without epoch must greater than or equal to %u.", > > "must greater" shiould be "must be greater"? Fixed in v2 attached to the prior email. > "without epoch" seems not necessary to me. I guess that depends on whether or not we error if the epoch is present, see below. > + /* > + * This cast will remove the epoch, if any > + */ > + xid = (TransactionId) strtou64(*newval, &endp, 0); > > Would it be better to use strtouint32_strict() instead of strtou64()? > That would allow us to detect invalid XID values larger than 2^32 and > report an error, similar to what pg_resetwal -x does. This was my first instinct, but it causes our integration tests to fail because pg_current_xact_id() returns the xid with epoch. You can fix this by casting pg_current_xact_id()::xid but this seems like a pretty big change in usage. I'm OK with it but we'd definitely need to update the documentation to match. What do you think? Regards -David -
Re: Improve checks for GUC recovery_target_xid
Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> — 2026-03-04T15:41:01Z
On Wed, Mar 4, 2026 at 2:11 PM David Steele <david@pgbackrest.org> wrote: > > On 2/27/26 08:12, Fujii Masao wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 20, 2026 at 2:42 PM David Steele <david@pgbackrest.org> wrote: > > > > + GUC_check_errdetail("\"%s\" without epoch must greater than or equal to %u.", > > > > "must greater" shiould be "must be greater"? > > Fixed in v2 attached to the prior email. > > > "without epoch" seems not necessary to me. > > I guess that depends on whether or not we error if the epoch is present, > see below. > > > + /* > > + * This cast will remove the epoch, if any > > + */ > > + xid = (TransactionId) strtou64(*newval, &endp, 0); > > > > Would it be better to use strtouint32_strict() instead of strtou64()? > > That would allow us to detect invalid XID values larger than 2^32 and > > report an error, similar to what pg_resetwal -x does. > > This was my first instinct, but it causes our integration tests to fail > because pg_current_xact_id() returns the xid with epoch. You can fix > this by casting pg_current_xact_id()::xid but this seems like a pretty > big change in usage. I'm OK with it but we'd definitely need to update > the documentation to match. > > What do you think? I see your point, and I'm fine with the patch. My earlier comment was based on my misunderstanding. I thought that only 32-bit transaction IDs were allowed for recovery_target_xid, and therefore values larger than 2^32 should be rejected. However, recovery_target_xid currently accepts both 32-bit XIDs and 64-bit full transaction IDs (epoch + 32-bit XID). When a 64-bit value is specified, only the 32-bit XID portion is used as the recovery target. Given this behavior, your change seems to make sense. Regarding the regression test, if the purpose is to verify the GUC hook for recovery_target_xid, it might be simpler to test whether "ALTER SYSTEM SET recovery_target_xid TO ..." succeeds or fails as expected as follows, rather than starting the server with that setting. That said, since recovery_target_timeline is already tested in a similar way, I understand why you followed the same pattern here. So I'm ok with the current approach. my ($result, $stdout, $stderr) = $node_primary->psql('postgres', "ALTER SYSTEM SET recovery_target_xid TO 'bogus'"); like( $stderr, qr/is not a valid number/, "invalid recovery_target_xid (bogus value)"); If we think it's better to use ALTER SYSTEM SET for testing invalid recovery_target_xxx settings to keep the regression tests simpler, we can revisit this later and address it in a separate patch. Regards, -- Fujii Masao -
Re: Improve checks for GUC recovery_target_xid
Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> — 2026-03-04T16:19:17Z
On Thu, Mar 5, 2026 at 12:41 AM Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote: > My earlier comment was based on my misunderstanding. I thought that only > 32-bit transaction IDs were allowed for recovery_target_xid, and therefore > values larger than 2^32 should be rejected. > > However, recovery_target_xid currently accepts both 32-bit XIDs and 64-bit > full transaction IDs (epoch + 32-bit XID). When a 64-bit value is specified, > only the 32-bit XID portion is used as the recovery target. > Given this behavior, your change seems to make sense. I'm tempted to clarify this behavior by adding something like the following text to the description of recovery_target_xid in config.sgml...: ------------------------------- The value can be specified as either a 32-bit transaction ID or a 64-bit transaction ID (consisting of an epoch and a 32-bit ID), such as the value returned by pg_current_xact_id(). When a 64-bit transaction ID is provided, only its 32-bit transaction ID portion is used as the recovery target. For example, the values 4294968296 (epoch 1) and 8589935592 (epoch 2) both refer to the same 32-bit transaction ID, 1000. The effective transaction ID (the 32-bit portion) must be greater than or equal to 3. ------------------------------- Regards, -- Fujii Masao
-
Re: Improve checks for GUC recovery_target_xid
David Steele <david@pgbackrest.org> — 2026-03-05T03:40:44Z
On 3/4/26 22:41, Fujii Masao wrote: > > Regarding the regression test, if the purpose is to verify the GUC hook > for recovery_target_xid, it might be simpler to test whether > "ALTER SYSTEM SET recovery_target_xid TO ..." succeeds or fails as expected > as follows, rather than starting the server with that setting. That said, > since recovery_target_timeline is already tested in a similar way, I understand > why you followed the same pattern here. So I'm ok with the current approach. I wrote the tests for recovery_target_timeline but I was not too satisfied with them because starting Postgres is fairly expensive. > > my ($result, $stdout, $stderr) = $node_primary->psql('postgres', > "ALTER SYSTEM SET recovery_target_xid TO 'bogus'"); > like( > $stderr, > qr/is not a valid number/, > "invalid recovery_target_xid (bogus value)"); > > If we think it's better to use ALTER SYSTEM SET for testing invalid > recovery_target_xxx settings to keep the regression tests simpler, > we can revisit this later and address it in a separate patch. I've updated the patch to do it this way. Not only is it faster but you get a better message when the expected value is incorrect. I can update the tests for recovery_target_timeline in a separate patch. Regards, -David -
Re: Improve checks for GUC recovery_target_xid
David Steele <david@pgbackrest.org> — 2026-03-05T03:46:02Z
On 3/4/26 23:19, Fujii Masao wrote: > On Thu, Mar 5, 2026 at 12:41 AM Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote: >> My earlier comment was based on my misunderstanding. I thought that only >> 32-bit transaction IDs were allowed for recovery_target_xid, and therefore >> values larger than 2^32 should be rejected. >> >> However, recovery_target_xid currently accepts both 32-bit XIDs and 64-bit >> full transaction IDs (epoch + 32-bit XID). When a 64-bit value is specified, >> only the 32-bit XID portion is used as the recovery target. >> Given this behavior, your change seems to make sense. > > I'm tempted to clarify this behavior by adding something like > the following text to the description of recovery_target_xid > in config.sgml...: > > ------------------------------- > The value can be specified as either a 32-bit transaction ID or a 64-bit > transaction ID (consisting of an epoch and a 32-bit ID), such as the value > returned by pg_current_xact_id(). When a 64-bit transaction ID is provided, > only its 32-bit transaction ID portion is used as the recovery target. > For example, the values 4294968296 (epoch 1) and 8589935592 (epoch 2) > both refer to the same 32-bit transaction ID, 1000. > > The effective transaction ID (the 32-bit portion) must be greater than > or equal to 3. > ------------------------------- +1. I added this to the v3 patch. Regards, -David
-
Re: Improve checks for GUC recovery_target_xid
Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> — 2026-03-05T04:03:36Z
On Thu, Mar 05, 2026 at 03:40:44AM +0000, David Steele wrote: > I wrote the tests for recovery_target_timeline but I was not too satisfied > with them because starting Postgres is fairly expensive. +# Invalid recovery_target_xid tests +$node_standby = PostgreSQL::Test::Cluster->new('standby_10'); +$node_standby->init_from_backup($node_primary, 'my_backup', + has_restoring => 1); +$node_standby->start; + +my ($result, $stdout, $stderr) = $node_primary->psql('postgres', + "ALTER SYSTEM SET recovery_target_xid TO 'bogus'"); +like( + $stderr, + qr/is not a valid number/, + "invalid recovery_target_xid (bogus value)"); Smart move to rely on ALTER SYSTEM to check how the GUC callback is reacting on incorrect input values. Why do you need to create and start a new standby if it is not used, then? -- Michael -
Re: Improve checks for GUC recovery_target_xid
David Steele <david@pgbackrest.org> — 2026-03-05T04:21:16Z
On 3/5/26 11:03, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Thu, Mar 05, 2026 at 03:40:44AM +0000, David Steele wrote: >> I wrote the tests for recovery_target_timeline but I was not too satisfied >> with them because starting Postgres is fairly expensive. > > +# Invalid recovery_target_xid tests > +$node_standby = PostgreSQL::Test::Cluster->new('standby_10'); > +$node_standby->init_from_backup($node_primary, 'my_backup', > + has_restoring => 1); > +$node_standby->start; > + > +my ($result, $stdout, $stderr) = $node_primary->psql('postgres', > + "ALTER SYSTEM SET recovery_target_xid TO 'bogus'"); > +like( > + $stderr, > + qr/is not a valid number/, > + "invalid recovery_target_xid (bogus value)"); > > Smart move to rely on ALTER SYSTEM to check how the GUC callback is > reacting on incorrect input values. Why do you need to create and > start a new standby if it is not used, then? The prior standby is not running because of the invalid config. I figured it was better to start clean but when I update the recovery_target_timeline tests I was planning to use the same standby for all the new tests. Regards, -David -
Re: Improve checks for GUC recovery_target_xid
Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> — 2026-03-05T05:03:37Z
On Thu, Mar 5, 2026 at 1:21 PM David Steele <david@pgbackrest.org> wrote: > The prior standby is not running because of the invalid config. I > figured it was better to start clean but when I update the > recovery_target_timeline tests I was planning to use the same standby > for all the new tests. Alternatively, we can use $node_primary, since ALTER SYSTEM SET with invalid recovery_target_timeline or recovery_target_xid does not affect the primary. Regards, -- Fujii Masao
-
Re: Improve checks for GUC recovery_target_xid
David Steele <david@pgbackrest.org> — 2026-03-05T08:15:29Z
On 3/5/26 12:03, Fujii Masao wrote: > On Thu, Mar 5, 2026 at 1:21 PM David Steele <david@pgbackrest.org> wrote: >> The prior standby is not running because of the invalid config. I >> figured it was better to start clean but when I update the >> recovery_target_timeline tests I was planning to use the same standby >> for all the new tests. > > Alternatively, we can use $node_primary, since ALTER SYSTEM SET with > invalid recovery_target_timeline or recovery_target_xid does not > affect the primary. Well, as it turns out I was using the primary after all because I copied your example and forgot to update the host. Seems weird to set these GUCs on the primary but as long as we get the expected errors I don't suppose it matters. Regards, -David
-
Re: Improve checks for GUC recovery_target_xid
Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> — 2026-03-05T12:42:19Z
On Thu, Mar 5, 2026 at 5:15 PM David Steele <david@pgbackrest.org> wrote: > > On 3/5/26 12:03, Fujii Masao wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 5, 2026 at 1:21 PM David Steele <david@pgbackrest.org> wrote: > >> The prior standby is not running because of the invalid config. I > >> figured it was better to start clean but when I update the > >> recovery_target_timeline tests I was planning to use the same standby > >> for all the new tests. > > > > Alternatively, we can use $node_primary, since ALTER SYSTEM SET with > > invalid recovery_target_timeline or recovery_target_xid does not > > affect the primary. > > Well, as it turns out I was using the primary after all because I copied > your example and forgot to update the host. Seems weird to set these > GUCs on the primary but as long as we get the expected errors I don't > suppose it matters. Thanks for updating the patch! I've pushed the patch. Regards, -- Fujii Masao
-
Re: Improve checks for GUC recovery_target_xid
David Steele <david@pgbackrest.org> — 2026-03-05T13:32:50Z
On 3/5/26 19:42, Fujii Masao wrote: > On Thu, Mar 5, 2026 at 5:15 PM David Steele <david@pgbackrest.org> wrote: >> >> On 3/5/26 12:03, Fujii Masao wrote: >>> On Thu, Mar 5, 2026 at 1:21 PM David Steele <david@pgbackrest.org> wrote: >>>> The prior standby is not running because of the invalid config. I >>>> figured it was better to start clean but when I update the >>>> recovery_target_timeline tests I was planning to use the same standby >>>> for all the new tests. >>> >>> Alternatively, we can use $node_primary, since ALTER SYSTEM SET with >>> invalid recovery_target_timeline or recovery_target_xid does not >>> affect the primary. >> >> Well, as it turns out I was using the primary after all because I copied >> your example and forgot to update the host. Seems weird to set these >> GUCs on the primary but as long as we get the expected errors I don't >> suppose it matters. > > Thanks for updating the patch! I've pushed the patch. Excellent, thank you! Attached are the test changes for recovery_target_timeline. I can start a new thread and add it to the next CF if you like, but since it is just test changes maybe we can fast track it. Regards, -David
-
Re: Improve checks for GUC recovery_target_xid
Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> — 2026-03-05T15:04:00Z
On Thu, Mar 5, 2026 at 10:32 PM David Steele <david@pgbackrest.org> wrote: > > On 3/5/26 19:42, Fujii Masao wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 5, 2026 at 5:15 PM David Steele <david@pgbackrest.org> wrote: > >> > >> On 3/5/26 12:03, Fujii Masao wrote: > >>> On Thu, Mar 5, 2026 at 1:21 PM David Steele <david@pgbackrest.org> wrote: > >>>> The prior standby is not running because of the invalid config. I > >>>> figured it was better to start clean but when I update the > >>>> recovery_target_timeline tests I was planning to use the same standby > >>>> for all the new tests. > >>> > >>> Alternatively, we can use $node_primary, since ALTER SYSTEM SET with > >>> invalid recovery_target_timeline or recovery_target_xid does not > >>> affect the primary. > >> > >> Well, as it turns out I was using the primary after all because I copied > >> your example and forgot to update the host. Seems weird to set these > >> GUCs on the primary but as long as we get the expected errors I don't > >> suppose it matters. > > > > Thanks for updating the patch! I've pushed the patch. > > Excellent, thank you! > > Attached are the test changes for recovery_target_timeline. I can start > a new thread and add it to the next CF if you like, but since it is just > test changes maybe we can fast track it. Yes, let's discuss and review the patch in this thread. Thanks for the patch! It looks good to me. Barring any objections, I will commit it. Regards, -- Fujii Masao
-
Re: Improve checks for GUC recovery_target_xid
Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> — 2026-03-06T06:15:37Z
On Fri, Mar 06, 2026 at 12:04:00AM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: > Thanks for the patch! It looks good to me. Barring any objections, I > will commit it. Thanks. -- Michael
-
Re: Improve checks for GUC recovery_target_xid
Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> — 2026-03-06T07:05:17Z
On Fri, Mar 6, 2026 at 3:15 PM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 06, 2026 at 12:04:00AM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: > > Thanks for the patch! It looks good to me. Barring any objections, I > > will commit it. > > Thanks. I've pushed the patch. Thanks! Regards, -- Fujii Masao
-
Re: Improve checks for GUC recovery_target_xid
David Steele <david@pgbackrest.org> — 2026-03-06T15:01:04Z
On 3/6/26 14:05, Fujii Masao wrote: > On Fri, Mar 6, 2026 at 3:15 PM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote: >> >> On Fri, Mar 06, 2026 at 12:04:00AM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: >>> Thanks for the patch! It looks good to me. Barring any objections, I >>> will commit it. >> >> Thanks. > > I've pushed the patch. Thanks! Thank you and great idea on ALTER SYSTEM. I've been hesitant to add more tests in this area because they are so expensive but now I feel much better about it. But that's the last for this CF since there is more important stuff to be done. Regards, -David
-
Re: Improve checks for GUC recovery_target_xid
Hüseyin Demir <huseyin.d3r@gmail.com> — 2026-03-16T07:44:44Z
Hi, David Steele <david@pgbackrest.org>, 6 Mar 2026 Cum, 16:01 tarihinde şunu yazdı: > > On 3/6/26 14:05, Fujii Masao wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 6, 2026 at 3:15 PM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote: > >> > >> On Fri, Mar 06, 2026 at 12:04:00AM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: > >>> Thanks for the patch! It looks good to me. Barring any objections, I > >>> will commit it. > >> > >> Thanks. > > > > I've pushed the patch. Thanks! > > Thank you and great idea on ALTER SYSTEM. I've been hesitant to add more > tests in this area because they are so expensive but now I feel much > better about it. But that's the last for this CF since there is more > important stuff to be done. > > Regards, > -David I tried to create tests with the ALTER SYSTEM approach to validate the GUC. You can review it if it's the correct approach or not. We can create a new CF record if required for the patch. Regards.
-
Re: Improve checks for GUC recovery_target_xid
David Steele <david@pgbackrest.org> — 2026-03-17T14:36:49Z
Hi, On 3/16/26 14:44, Hüseyin Demir wrote: > > David Steele <david@pgbackrest.org>, 6 Mar 2026 Cum, 16:01 tarihinde şunu yazdı: >> >> On 3/6/26 14:05, Fujii Masao wrote: >>> On Fri, Mar 6, 2026 at 3:15 PM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Fri, Mar 06, 2026 at 12:04:00AM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: >>>>> Thanks for the patch! It looks good to me. Barring any objections, I >>>>> will commit it. >>>> >>>> Thanks. >>> >>> I've pushed the patch. Thanks! >> >> Thank you and great idea on ALTER SYSTEM. I've been hesitant to add more >> tests in this area because they are so expensive but now I feel much >> better about it. But that's the last for this CF since there is more >> important stuff to be done. >> >> Regards, >> -David > > I tried to create tests with the ALTER SYSTEM approach to validate the GUC. > > You can review it if it's the correct approach or not. We can create a > new CF record if required for the patch. I modified the tests in the patch to use ALTER SYSTEM and that was committed at [1]. One of the tests (bogus) you have added here is a duplicate but the other one (upper bound) could be added. You appear to be working against an old version of the master branch so I would recommend rebasing and then add your upper bound test following the test pattern we have already established. I personally don't think the upper bound test adds a lot of value here since it is handled by strtou64() just like the bogus test so it will not extend coverage, but I'm fine with it if others are. Regards, -David [1] https://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/bffd7130e942e2bd45153ab09e5fab70e74ece58.
-
Re: Improve checks for GUC recovery_target_xid
Hüseyin Demir <huseyin.d3r@gmail.com> — 2026-03-17T15:18:11Z
Thanks for the information, I think it's already covered by the previous commit. Regards. David Steele <david@pgbackrest.org>, 17 Mar 2026 Sal, 15:36 tarihinde şunu yazdı: > Hi, > > On 3/16/26 14:44, Hüseyin Demir wrote: > > > > David Steele <david@pgbackrest.org>, 6 Mar 2026 Cum, 16:01 tarihinde > şunu yazdı: > >> > >> On 3/6/26 14:05, Fujii Masao wrote: > >>> On Fri, Mar 6, 2026 at 3:15 PM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> > wrote: > >>>> > >>>> On Fri, Mar 06, 2026 at 12:04:00AM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: > >>>>> Thanks for the patch! It looks good to me. Barring any objections, I > >>>>> will commit it. > >>>> > >>>> Thanks. > >>> > >>> I've pushed the patch. Thanks! > >> > >> Thank you and great idea on ALTER SYSTEM. I've been hesitant to add more > >> tests in this area because they are so expensive but now I feel much > >> better about it. But that's the last for this CF since there is more > >> important stuff to be done. > >> > >> Regards, > >> -David > > > > I tried to create tests with the ALTER SYSTEM approach to validate the > GUC. > > > > You can review it if it's the correct approach or not. We can create a > > new CF record if required for the patch. > > I modified the tests in the patch to use ALTER SYSTEM and that was > committed at [1]. > > One of the tests (bogus) you have added here is a duplicate but the > other one (upper bound) could be added. > > You appear to be working against an old version of the master branch so > I would recommend rebasing and then add your upper bound test following > the test pattern we have already established. > > I personally don't think the upper bound test adds a lot of value here > since it is handled by strtou64() just like the bogus test so it will > not extend coverage, but I'm fine with it if others are. > > Regards, > -David > > [1] > > https://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/bffd7130e942e2bd45153ab09e5fab70e74ece58 > . >