| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Nitin Jadhav <nitinjadhavpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Fix GUC_NO_SHOW_ALL test scenario in 003_check_guc.pl |
| Date: | 2023-02-02 04:45:47 |
| Message-ID: | Y9s/+2R62rYtDXEh@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Feb 01, 2023 at 02:29:23PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> As also mentioned upthread by Tom, I am not sure that this combination
> makes much sense, actually, because I don't see why one would never
> want to know what is the effective value loaded for a parameter stored
> in a file when he/she has the permission to do so. This could be
> changed as of ALTER SYSTEM, postgresql.conf or even an included file,
> and the value can only be read if permission to see it is given to the
> role querying SHOW or pg_settings. This combination of flags is not a
> practice to encourage.
So, coming back quickly to this one, it seems to me that the tests in
guc.sql had better be adjusted down v15 where they have been
introduced, and that the extra check is worth doing on HEAD. Any
thoughts?
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2023-02-02 05:17:55 | Re: Exit walsender before confirming remote flush in logical replication |
| Previous Message | Kyotaro Horiguchi | 2023-02-02 04:34:23 | Re: Exit walsender before confirming remote flush in logical replication |