From: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Nitin Jadhav <nitinjadhavpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Fix GUC_NO_SHOW_ALL test scenario in 003_check_guc.pl |
Date: | 2023-01-13 14:02:21 |
Message-ID: | 20230113140221.GX9837@telsasoft.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 06:15:38PM +0530, Nitin Jadhav wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The commit 7265dbffad7feac6ea9d373828583b5d3d152e07 has added a script
> in src/backend/utils/misc/check_guc that cross-checks the consistency
> of the GUCs with postgresql.conf.sample, making sure that its format
> is in line with what guc.c has. As per the commit message, the
> parameters which are not listed as NOT_IN_SAMPLE in guc.c should be
> present in postgresql.conf.sample. But I have observed a test case
> failure when the parameters which are listed as GUC_NO_SHOW_ALL in
> guc.c and if it is present in postgresql.conf.sample. I feel this
> behaviour is not expected and this should be fixed. I spent some time
> on the analysis and found that query [1] is used to fetch all the
> parameters which are not listed as NOT_IN_SAMPLE. But the pg_settings
> view does not return the parameters listed as GUC_NO_SHOW_ALL. Hence
> these records will be missed. Please share your thoughts. I would like
> to work on the patch if a fix is required.
Looks like you're right ; show_all_settings() elides settings marked
"noshow".
Do you know how you'd implement a fix ?
--
Justin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Reid Thompson | 2023-01-13 14:15:10 | Re: Add the ability to limit the amount of memory that can be allocated to backends. |
Previous Message | houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com | 2023-01-13 13:55:31 | BF animal malleefowl reported an failure in 001_password.pl |