Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes:
> - a bit worried that in_hot_standby will be confusing due vs InHotStandby. I
> wonder if we could perhaps get rid of an underlying variable in cases where
> we really just need the GUC entry to trigger the show hook?
Yeah, that worried me too. We do need the variable because guc.c checks
it directly, but let's use a less confusing name. in_hot_standby_guc,
maybe?
> - perhaps too annoying, but it'd be easier to review this if the function
> renaming were done in a preparatory patch
There were only a couple that I renamed, and I don't think any of them
should be directly referenced by anything else.
> - Are all those includes in guc_tables.c still necessary?
The ones that are still there are necessary. I believe they're mostly
pulling in variables that are GUC targets.
> - It's a bit depressing that the GUC arrays aren't const, . But I guess that's
> better fixed separately.
Dunno that it'd be helpful, unless we separate the variable and constant
parts of the structs.
> I think this is localized enough that asking people to manually resolve a
> conflict around adding a GUC entry wouldn't be asking for that much. And I
> think plenty changes might be automatically resolvable, despite the rename.
I wonder whether git will be able to figure out that this is mostly a
code move. I would expect so for a straight file rename, but will that
work when we're splitting the file 3 ways?
regards, tom lane
