Re: fixes for a few GUC descriptions

From: Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: fixes for a few GUC descriptions
Date: 2026-09-11 00:18:38
Message-ID: CALj2ACUqJWSFkXq39zfSyP4=GRDEH_ipy3vqD7n0VbTfZ3U=Ng@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On Thu, Sep 10, 2026 at 2:42 PM Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Nikolay Samokhvalov 2026-09-11 00:33:34 Re: PG19: two RI fast-path issues found while testing the batching revert
Previous Message David Rowley 2026-09-11 00:05:02 Re: tuplesort_putdatum() does not account for tuple memory