Hi Robert, > I think you might be missing the point of the comments from Tom and
> David. To the extent that it is possible to give warnings, we already > do. So this proposal just doesn't really make sense. It either warns > in cases where there is no actual problem, or it gives a duplicate > warning in cases where there is. As far as I know, there shouldn’t be any duplicate warnings. But if you happen to come across a case where duplicates do occur, please do let me know - I’d be happy to revisit and correct my understanding. > I would really encourage you to spend a bit more time trying to > understand the current design intention and behavior before proposing > changes. It actually makes a lot of sense. It is not perfect, but if > there were a simple way to do better we would have likely done that a > long time ago. Thank you for the feedback - I do appreciate the depth of the current design and the effort that has gone into shaping it over the years. That said, I'm trying to understand it better by exploring edge cases and practical pain points we've encountered in real deployments. My intention is not to disregard the existing design, but to see if there's any room for incremental improvement or at least discussion. I understand that if there were an easy fix, it might have already been considered - but sometimes fresh perspectives can help uncover new angles. I’ll definitely take your suggestion to spend more time with the current behaviour seriously and will make sure any future proposals are better informed. Regards, Shaik Mohammad Mujeeb Member Technical Staff Zoho Corp ---- On Thu, 22 May 2025 22:22:41 +0530 Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote --- On Thu, May 22, 2025 at 12:10 PM Shaik Mohammad Mujeeb <mailto:mujeeb...@zohocorp.com> wrote: > In my patch, I currently warn and remove invalid GUCs from the hashtable. > However, as you rightly pointed out, some of these could belong to valid but > unregistered prefixes. In such cases, it might not be ideal to remove them > outright. Instead, it could be more helpful to simply warn the user - > covering both potential typos and GUCs with valid yet unregistered prefixes. > > I do understand that not everyone may prefer seeing such warnings during PG > server restart. To address this, we could introduce a new GUC (perhaps named > warn_on_unregistered_guc_prefix), which defaults to false, preserving the > existing behaviour. If explicitly enabled, it would emit warnings for these > cases, giving users the choice to opt in to this feedback. I think you might be missing the point of the comments from Tom and David. To the extent that it is possible to give warnings, we already do. So this proposal just doesn't really make sense. It either warns in cases where there is no actual problem, or it gives a duplicate warning in cases where there is. Changing the details of the proposal doesn't address that fundamental problem. I would really encourage you to spend a bit more time trying to understand the current design intention and behavior before proposing changes. It actually makes a lot of sense. It is not perfect, but if there were a simple way to do better we would have likely done that a long time ago. -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
