Re: GUC flags

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: GUC flags
Date: 2021-12-06 06:58:39
Message-ID: Ya20nxtRYfkg2jd6@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sun, Dec 05, 2021 at 11:38:05PM -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> Thanks. One more item. The check_guc script currently outputs 68 false
> positives - even though it includes a list of 20 exceptions. This is not
> useful.

Indeed. Hmm. This script does a couple of things:
1) Check the format of the options defined in the various lists of
guc.c, which is something people format well, and pgindent also does
a part of this job.
2) Check that options in the hardcoded list of GUCs in
INTENTIONALLY_NOT_INCLUDED are not included in
postgresql.conf.sample
3) Check that nothing considered as a parameter in
postgresql.conf.sample is listed in guc.c.

Your patch removes 1) and 2), but keeps 3) to check for dead
parameter references in postgresql.conf.sample.

Is check_guc actually run on a periodic basis by somebody? Based on
the amount of false positives that has accumulated over the years, and
what `git grep` can already do for 3), it seems to me that we have
more arguments in favor of just removing it entirely.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2021-12-06 07:10:05 Re: pg_replslotdata - a tool for displaying replication slot information
Previous Message osumi.takamichi@fujitsu.com 2021-12-06 06:56:16 RE: Optionally automatically disable logical replication subscriptions on error