On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 12:07:51PM -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote: > On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 11:47:14AM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> Does this stuff have any value for users? I'm worried we are exposing a >> bunch of stuff that is really just for internal purposes. Like, what value >> does showing "not_in_sample" have? On the other hand, "guc_explain" might >> be genuinely useful, since that is part of a user-facing feature. (I don't >> like the "guc_*" naming though.)
EXPLAIN is useful to know which parameter could be part of an explain query, as that's not an information provided now, even if the category provides a hint. COMPUTED is also useful for the purpose of postgres -C in my opinion. I am reserved about the rest in terms of user experience, but the other ones are useful to automate the checks check_guc was doing, which is still the main goal of this patch if we remove this script. And experience has proved lately that people forget a lot to mark GUCs correctly. > I interpretted Michael's suggested as adding it to pg_get_all_settings(), but > *not* including it in the pg_settings view. Now it seems like I > misunderstood, > and Michael wants to add it to the view. Yeah, I meant to add that in the view, as it is already wide. I'd be fine with a separate SQL function at the end, but putting that in pg_show_all_settings() without considering pg_settings would not be consistent. There is the argument that one could miss an update of system_views.sql if adding more data to pg_show_all_settings(), even if that's not really going to happen. > But, even if we only handle the 5 flags we have an immediate use for, it makes > the user-facing view too "wide", just to accommodate this internal use. short_desc and extra_desc count for most of the bloat already, so that would not change much, but I am fine to discard my point to not make things worse. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
