fixes for a few GUC descriptions
Hackorum builds and tests every patch posted to the lists, not only commitfest submissions. This is Hackorum's own CI rather than the PostgreSQL project's, and it is still under testing - please report anything that looks wrong.
This thread has been committed, so CI has stopped here. Anything below is the last result it produced.
You can run a PostgreSQL built from this patch straight from Docker, with no checkout and no build:
docker run --rm -p 5432:5432 ghcr.io/hackorum-dev/postgres-patch:t253760psql -h localhost -U postgresBuilt from patchset v6 (message #6), September 13, 2026 at 03:47 PM.
Every patchset is also pushed to a branch of our PostgreSQL fork, so you can check out the same tree CI built. Without a PostgreSQL checkout:
git clone --branch t253760_6 https://github.com/hackorum-dev/postgres.gitIn a checkout you already have, add the fork once:
git remote add hackorum https://github.com/hackorum-dev/postgres.gitthen, for this patchset and every later one:
git fetch hackorum t253760_6 && git checkout t253760_6Patchset v6 (message #6) is on t253760_6
Hi,
On Thu, Sep 10, 2026 at 2:42 PM Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> wrote:
Some new parameters added since commit 977d865c36 do not follow the GUC
description rules established by that commit. I've attached a patch to fix
them.
Patch looks good to me. Some of these GUCs were introduced in prior
versions. I am fine if we are not backpatching the fixes.
--
Bharath Rupireddy
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 9:18 AM Bharath Rupireddy
<bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com> wrote:
Some new parameters added since commit 977d865c36 do not follow the GUC
description rules established by that commit. I've attached a patch to fix
them.Patch looks good to me.
+1 except for one thing.
- long_desc => '-1 disables the timeout and waits for the receiver to
catch up; 0 does not wait for the receiver to catch up.',
+ long_desc => '-1 disables the timeout. 0 means do not wait for the
receiver to catch up.',The previous wording was intentionally added based on Daniel's comment [1]/messages/by-id/B5EB4E43-290E-4509-AFF5-06453E4966CE@yesql.se.
Regards,
[1]: /messages/by-id/B5EB4E43-290E-4509-AFF5-06453E4966CE@yesql.se
"A value of <literal>-1</literal> (the default) disables the timeout
mechanism"To me as a non-native speaker reading that a timeout is disabled can be
interpreted as if there is no waiting done, just like the in the case of 0.
--
Fujii Masao
On Sep 11, 2026, at 08:54, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 9:18 AM Bharath Rupireddy
<bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com> wrote:Some new parameters added since commit 977d865c36 do not follow the GUC
description rules established by that commit. I've attached a patch to fix
them.Patch looks good to me.
+1 except for one thing.
- long_desc => '-1 disables the timeout and waits for the receiver to catch up; 0 does not wait for the receiver to catch up.', + long_desc => '-1 disables the timeout. 0 means do not wait for the receiver to catch up.',The previous wording was intentionally added based on Daniel's comment [1].
Regards,
[1] /messages/by-id/B5EB4E43-290E-4509-AFF5-06453E4966CE@yesql.se
"A value of <literal>-1</literal> (the default) disables the timeout
mechanism"To me as a non-native speaker reading that a timeout is disabled can be
interpreted as if there is no waiting done, just like the in the case of 0.--
Fujii Masao
Yeah, here -1 is really more like “wait forever”, so just saying “disables the timeout” feels like it loses that distinction.
Best regards,
--
Chao Li (Evan)
HighGo Software Co., Ltd.
https://www.highgo.com/
On 2026-Sep-11, Chao Li wrote:
On Sep 11, 2026, at 08:54, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
- long_desc => '-1 disables the timeout and waits for the receiver to catch up; 0 does not wait for the receiver to catch up.', + long_desc => '-1 disables the timeout. 0 means do not wait for the receiver to catch up.',
Yeah, here -1 is really more like “wait forever”, so just saying “disables the timeout” feels like it loses that distinction.
Maybe it should say "0 means do not wait, -1 means wait indefinitely."
This complements the short_desc,
Sets the maximum time the server waits during shutdown for all WAL data
to be replicated to the receiver.
I think the words "for the receiver to catch up" is somehow at odds with
the short_desc's "for all WAL data to be replicated". They should be
saying the same thing, but aren't.
--
Álvaro Herrera PostgreSQL Developer — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
Si no sabes adonde vas, es muy probable que acabes en otra parte.
On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 11:14:03AM +0200, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
Maybe it should say "0 means do not wait, -1 means wait indefinitely."
This complements the short_desc,Sets the maximum time the server waits during shutdown for all WAL data
to be replicated to the receiver.I think the words "for the receiver to catch up" is somehow at odds with
the short_desc's "for all WAL data to be replicated". They should be
saying the same thing, but aren't.
WFM. v2 uses that wording, except -1 is listed first so that the special
values stay in ascending order.
I was considering back-patching this to v19. I'd rather not update the
descriptions in released versions, although I'm not even sure anything in
released versions need fixing. Any concerns about this?
--
nathan
On Sep 11, 2026, at 23:34, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 11:14:03AM +0200, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
Maybe it should say "0 means do not wait, -1 means wait indefinitely."
This complements the short_desc,Sets the maximum time the server waits during shutdown for all WAL data
to be replicated to the receiver.I think the words "for the receiver to catch up" is somehow at odds with
the short_desc's "for all WAL data to be replicated". They should be
saying the same thing, but aren't.WFM. v2 uses that wording, except -1 is listed first so that the special
values stay in ascending order.I was considering back-patching this to v19. I'd rather not update the
descriptions in released versions, although I'm not even sure anything in
released versions need fixing. Any concerns about this?--
nathan
<v2-0001-Describe-special-values-in-more-GUC-descriptions.patch>
V2 LGTM.
Best regards,
--
Chao Li (Evan)
HighGo Software Co., Ltd.
https://www.highgo.com/