Re: How about a psql backslash command to show GUCs?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Jonathan S(dot) Katz" <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Cc: Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, Christoph Berg <myon(at)debian(dot)org>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: How about a psql backslash command to show GUCs?
Date: 2022-04-13 19:05:35
Message-ID: 1270618.1649876735@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Jonathan S. Katz" <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
> On 4/12/22 1:00 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Yeah, most of what shows up in a minimally-configured installation is
>> postmaster-computed settings like config_file, rather than things
>> that were actually set by the DBA. Personally I'd rather hide the
>> ones that have source = 'override', but that didn't seem to be the
>> consensus.

> The list seems more reasonable now, though now that I'm fully in the
> "less is more" camp based on the "non-defaults" description, I think
> anything we can do to further prune is good.

Hearing no further comments, I pushed this version. There didn't seem
to be a need to adjust the docs.

> We may be at a point where it's "good enough" and let more people chime
> in during beta.

Right, lots of time yet for bikeshedding in beta.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Nikita Malakhov 2022-04-13 19:58:24 Re: Pluggable toaster
Previous Message Nikita Malakhov 2022-04-13 18:55:03 Re: Pluggable toaster