Re: Fix GUC_NO_SHOW_ALL test scenario in 003_check_guc.pl

Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> writes:
> SELECT pg_show_all_settings() ought to keep working when called with no
> parameter. Tom gave me a hint how to do that for system catalogs here:
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/17988.1584472261@sss.pgh.pa.us
> In this case, it might be cleaner to add a second entry to pg_proc.dat
> than to add "CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION" to system_functions.sql (I
> tried but couldn't get that to work just now).

I kind of think this is a lot of unnecessary work. The case that is
problematic is a GUC that's marked GUC_NO_SHOW_ALL but not marked
GUC_NOT_IN_SAMPLE. There aren't any of those, and I don't think there
are likely to be any in future, because it doesn't make a lot of sense.
Why don't we just make a policy against doing that, and enforce it
with an assertion somewhere in GUC initialization?

regards, tom lane