Re: is_superuser is not documented

> Thanks for the patch!
>
>
> + <varlistentry id="guc-is-superuser" xreflabel="is_superuser">
> + <term><varname>is_superuser</varname> (<type>boolean</type>)
>
> You need to add this entry just after that of "in_hot_standby" because
> the descriptions of preset parameters should be placed in alphabetical
> order in the docs.
>
>
> + <para>
> + Reports whether the user is superuser or not.
>
> Isn't it better to add "current" before "user", e.g.,
> "Reports whether the current user is a superuser"?
>
>
> /* Not for general use --- used by SET SESSION AUTHORIZATION */
> - {"is_superuser", PGC_INTERNAL, UNGROUPED,
> + {"is_superuser", PGC_INTERNAL, PRESET_OPTIONS,
>
> This comment should be rewritten or removed because "Not for general
> use" part is not true.
>
>
> - GUC_REPORT | GUC_NO_SHOW_ALL | GUC_NO_RESET_ALL |
> GUC_NOT_IN_SAMPLE | GUC_DISALLOW_IN_FILE
> + GUC_REPORT | GUC_NO_RESET_ALL | GUC_NOT_IN_SAMPLE |
> GUC_DISALLOW_IN_FILE
>
> As Tom commented upthread, GUC_NO_RESET_ALL flag should be removed
> because it's not necessary when PGC_INTERNAL context (i.e., in this
> context,
> RESET ALL is prohibit by defaulted) is used.
>
>
> With the patch, make check failed. You need to update
> src/test/regress/expected/guc.out.
>
>
> <varlistentry>
> <term><literal>IS_SUPERUSER</literal></term>
> <listitem>
> <para>
> True if the current role has superuser privileges.
> </para>
>
> I found that the docs of SET command has the above description about
> is_superuser.
> This description seems useless if we document the is_superuser GUC
> itself. So isn't
> it better to remove this description?

Thank you for your review.
I create new patch add_document_is_superuser_v2.
please check it.

Regards,
Kotaro Kawamoto