Re: Fix GUC_NO_SHOW_ALL test scenario in 003_check_guc.pl

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Nitin Jadhav <nitinjadhavpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Fix GUC_NO_SHOW_ALL test scenario in 003_check_guc.pl
Date: 2023-02-09 02:42:13
Message-ID: 3816877.1675910533@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, Feb 09, 2023 at 10:28:14AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> I am wondering.. Did people notice that this adds GUC_NOT_IN_SAMPLE
>> to config_file in guc_tables.c? This makes sense in the long run
>> based on what this parameter is by design, still there may be an
>> objection to doing that?

> I think it's fine to add the flag.

Hm. On the one hand, if it is in fact not in postgresql.conf.sample,
then that flag should be set for sure. OTOH I see that that flag
isn't purely documentation: help_config.c thinks it should hide
GUCs that are marked that way. Do we really want that behavior?
Not sure. I can see an argument that you might want --describe-config
to tell you that, but there are a lot of other GUC_NOT_IN_SAMPLE
GUCs that maybe do indeed deserve to be left out.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kyotaro Horiguchi 2023-02-09 02:50:09 Is psSocketPoll doing the right thing?
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2023-02-09 02:37:41 Re: tests against running server occasionally fail, postgres_fdw & tenk1