| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, 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: | 2023-02-10 07:43:15 |
| Message-ID: | Y+X1k52UhRLLqfQ/@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Feb 08, 2023 at 09:42:13PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.
I am not sure to follow. help_config() won't show something that's
either marked NO_SHOW_ALL, NOT_IN_SAMPLE or DISALLOW_IN_FILE, hence
config_file does not show up already in what postgres
--describe-config prints, because it has DISALLOW_IN_FILE, so adding
NOT_IN_SAMPLE changes nothing.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim Jones | 2023-02-10 08:15:50 | Re: [PATCH] Add pretty-printed XML output option |
| Previous Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2023-02-10 07:15:46 | Re: [PoC] Improve dead tuple storage for lazy vacuum |