| 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
| 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 |