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: 2022-02-08 01:44:07
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
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

What do you think about the updated version attached? I have applied
the addition of config_data() separately.

Attachment Content-Type Size
v2-0001-Add-TAP-test-to-automate-check_guc.patch text/x-diff 4.0 KB

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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