> 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 <mich...@paquier.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