From: | Nitin Jadhav <nitinjadhavpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Fix GUC_NO_SHOW_ALL test scenario in 003_check_guc.pl |
Date: | 2023-02-08 10:51:57 |
Message-ID: | CAMm1aWbWk4NHjxnETkWCYhubPTWWGxMLd8jA819h3yGP0hQODg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Okay, the part to add an initialization check for GUC_NO_SHOW_ALL and
> GUC_NOT_IN_SAMPLE looked fine by me, so applied after more comment
> polishing.
>
> 0001 has been applied to clean up the existing situation.
Thanks for committing these 2 changes.
> On top of that, I have noticed an extra combination that would not
> make sense and that could be checked with the SQL queries:
> GUC_DISALLOW_IN_FILE implies GUC_NOT_IN_SAMPLE. The opposite may not
> be true, though, as some developer GUCs are marked as
> GUC_NOT_IN_SAMPLE but they are allowed in a file. The only exception
> to that currently is config_file. It is just a special case whose
> value is enforced at startup and it can be passed down as an option
> switch via the postgres binary, still it seems like it would be better
> to also mark it as GUC_NOT_IN_SAMPLE? This is done in 0002, only for
> HEAD, as that would be a new check.
>
> Remains
> 0002, that I am letting sleep to see if there's interest for it, or
> perhaps more ideas around it.
Makes sense and the patch looks good to me.
Thanks & Regards,
Nitin Jadhav
On Wed, Feb 8, 2023 at 1:29 PM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 06, 2023 at 04:23:02PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > On top of that, I have noticed an extra combination that would not
> > make sense and that could be checked with the SQL queries:
> > GUC_DISALLOW_IN_FILE implies GUC_NOT_IN_SAMPLE. The opposite may not
> > be true, though, as some developer GUCs are marked as
> > GUC_NOT_IN_SAMPLE but they are allowed in a file. The only exception
> > to that currently is config_file. It is just a special case whose
> > value is enforced at startup and it can be passed down as an option
> > switch via the postgres binary, still it seems like it would be better
> > to also mark it as GUC_NOT_IN_SAMPLE? This is done in 0002, only for
> > HEAD, as that would be a new check.
>
> 0001 has been applied to clean up the existing situation. Remains
> 0002, that I am letting sleep to see if there's interest for it, or
> perhaps more ideas around it.
> --
> Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Langote | 2023-02-08 11:09:38 | Re: A bug with ExecCheckPermissions |
Previous Message | Nazir Bilal Yavuz | 2023-02-08 10:49:37 | REASSIGN OWNED vs ALTER TABLE OWNER TO permission inconsistencies |