> On 30 Jan 2024, at 13:36, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote: > > I noticed while answering a question that commit b577743000cd added the > GUC scram_iterations and marked it GUC_REPORT, but failed to add it to > the PQparameterStatus documentation.
Ugh, thanks for fixing! > 1. that list looks to be in random order. Should we sort it > alphabetically? It seems to have some semblance of grouping per GUC functionality, but not quite. I'm not sure sorting alphabetically will improve the current state though. > 2. the notes about the versions in which some parameters started to be > reported, look quite outdated. We don't really care about things not > reported in 8.0 or 8.1 or even 9.0. For all purposes, it seems > perfectly OK to say that these parameters have been reported forever > (i.e. don't mention them in these lists). I think we should remove all > those, except the note about version 14. Agreed. > 3. Should we list scram_iterations as having started to be reported with > version 16? Yes, similar to in_hot_standby for v14. > The GUC didn't exist before that; but we could say that if > it's not reported, then the application can assume that the value is > 4096 (similar to the wording for standard_conforming_strings). There is no real practical use for knowing the value if it's not reported, since there isn't anything the user can do differently knowing that. I would leave that out to avoid confusion, but I don't have strong feelings if you think it should be added. -- Daniel Gustafsson
