From: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Nitin Jadhav <nitinjadhavpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Fix GUC_NO_SHOW_ALL test scenario in 003_check_guc.pl |
Date: | 2023-01-29 16:44:04 |
Message-ID: | 20230129164404.GC22427@telsasoft.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Jan 29, 2023 at 05:22:13PM +0530, Nitin Jadhav wrote:
> > We could extend pg_show_all_settings() with a boolean parameter to
> > enforce listing all the parameters, even the ones that are marked as
> > NOSHOW, but this does not count on GetConfigOptionValues() that could
> > force a parameter to become noshow on a superuser-only GUC depending
> > on the role that's running the function. At the end, we'd better rely
> > on a separate superuser-only function to do this job, aka option 1.
>
> I had started a separate thread [1] to refactor the code around
> GetConfigOptionValues() and the patch is already committed. Now it
> makes our job simpler to extend pg_show_all_settings() with a boolean
> parameter to enforce listing all the parameters, even the ones that
> are marked as NOSHOW. I have attached the patch for the same. Kindly
> look into it and share your thoughts.
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).
--
Justin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2023-01-29 17:26:02 | Re: lockup in parallel hash join on dikkop (freebsd 14.0-current) |
Previous Message | vignesh C | 2023-01-29 16:35:23 | Re: [Commitfest 2023-01] has started |