Re: [PATCH] force_parallel_mode and GUC categories

On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 10:31 AM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 07:39:28AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 10:17:18PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> >> This is the main motive behind the patch.
> >>
> >> Developer options aren't shown in postgresql.conf.sample, which it seems like
> >> sometimes people read through quickly, setting a whole bunch of options that
> >> sound good, sometimes including this one. And in the best case they then ask
> >> on -performance why their queries are slow and we tell them to turn it back off
> >> to fix their issues. This changes to no longer put it in .sample, and calling
> >> it a "dev" option seems to be the classification and mechanism by which to do
> >> that.
> >
> > +1
>
> Hm. I can see the point you are making based on the bug report that
> has led to this thread:
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAN0SRDFV=Fv0zXHCGbh7gh=MTfw05Xd1x7gjJrZs5qn-TEphOw@mail.gmail.com
>
> However, I'd like to think that we can do better than what's proposed
> in the patch. There are a couple of things to consider here:
> - Should the parameter be renamed to reflect that it should only be
> used for testing purposes?
> - Should we make more general the description of the developer options
> in the docs?

IMO, categorizing force_parallel_mode to DEVELOPER_OPTIONS and moving
it to the "Developer Options" section in config.sgml looks
appropriate. So, the v2-0004 patch proposed by Justin at [1] looks
good to me. If there are any other GUCs that are not meant to be used
in production, IMO we could follow the same.

[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20210408213812.GA18734%40telsasoft.com

With Regards,
Bharath Rupireddy.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com