| 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: | 2022-02-08 01:44:07 |
| Message-ID: | YgHK56v7NYXGso+x@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Feb 06, 2022 at 09:04:14PM -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> Your test is checking that stuff in sample.conf is actually a GUC and not
> marked NOT_IN_SAMPLE. But those are both unlikely mistakes to make.
Yeah, you are right. Still, I don't see any reason to not include both.
> I'd first parse the GUC-like lines in the file, making a list of gucs_in_file
> and then compare the two lists.
This is a good idea, and makes the tests faster because there is no
need to test each GUC separately. While testing a bit more, I got
recalled by the fact that config_file is not marked as NOT_IN_SAMPLE
and not in postgresql.conf.sample, so the new case you suggested was
failing.
What do you think about the updated version attached? I have applied
the addition of config_data() separately.
--
Michael
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v2-0001-Add-TAP-test-to-automate-check_guc.patch | text/x-diff | 4.0 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Julien Rouhaud | 2022-02-08 02:10:50 | Add tag/category to the commitfest app |
| Previous Message | Jonathan S. Katz | 2022-02-08 01:43:43 | Re: 2022-02-10 release announcement draft |