Re: Fix GUC_NO_SHOW_ALL test scenario in 003_check_guc.pl

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Nitin Jadhav <nitinjadhavpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>
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: 2023-02-09 01:28:14
Message-ID: Y+RMLoB9ulkWER+z@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Feb 08, 2023 at 04:21:57PM +0530, Nitin Jadhav wrote:
> Makes sense and the patch looks good to me.

Ah, OK. Thanks for the feedback!

I am wondering.. Did people notice that this adds GUC_NOT_IN_SAMPLE
to config_file in guc_tables.c? This makes sense in the long run
based on what this parameter is by design, still there may be an
objection to doing that?
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2023-02-09 02:22:34 Re: Move defaults toward ICU in 16?
Previous Message Peter Smith 2023-02-09 01:01:10 Re: [PATCH] Add pretty-printed XML output option