Re: GUC flags

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, bruce(at)momjian(dot)us, tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us
Subject: Re: GUC flags
Date: 2022-02-07 02:40:12
Message-ID: YgCGjDK/
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sun, Feb 06, 2022 at 02:09:45PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Actually, I am thinking that we should implement it before retiring
> completely check_guc, but not in the fashion you are suggesting. I
> would be tempted to add something in the TAP tests as of
> src/test/misc/, where we initialize an instance to get the information
> about all the GUCs from SQL, and map that to the sample file located
> at pg_config --sharedir. I actually have in my patch set for
> pg_upgrade's TAP a perl routine that could be used for this purpose,
> as of the following in

I have been poking at that, and this is finishing to be pretty
elegant as of the attached. With this in place, we are able to
cross-check GUCs marked as NOT_IN_SAMPLE (or not) with the contents of
postgresql.conf.sample, so as check_guc could get retired without us
losing much.

I am planning to apply the part of the patch separately,
for clarity, as I want this routine in place for some other patch.

Attachment Content-Type Size
0001-Add-TAP-test-to-automate-check_guc.patch text/x-diff 3.8 KB

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2022-02-07 02:53:41 Re: pg_receivewal - couple of improvements
Previous Message Fujii Masao 2022-02-07 01:45:34 Re: [PATCH] Add min() and max() aggregate functions for xid8