On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 07:35:43AM -0800, bricklen wrote:
> Please post the results of the following query:
> 
> SELECT  'version'::text AS "name",
>         version() AS "current_setting"
> UNION ALL
> SELECT  name,
>         current_setting(name)
> FROM pg_settings
> WHERE NOT source='default'AND NOT name IN
> ('config_file','data_directory','hba_file','ident_file','log_timezone','DateStyle','lc_messages','lc_monetary','lc_numeric','lc_time','timezone_abbreviations','default_text_search_config','application_name','transaction_deferrable','transaction_isolation','transaction_read_only');

Above is a very creative query that was posted to the bugs list by
bricklen.  It reports all non-default server settings, plus version(). 
Here is a realigned version:

        SELECT  'version'::text AS name, version() AS current_setting
        UNION ALL
        SELECT  name, current_setting(name)
        FROM    pg_settings
        WHERE   source != 'default' AND 
                name NOT IN
        (
                
'config_file','data_directory','hba_file','ident_file','log_timezone',
                'DateStyle','lc_messages','lc_monetary','lc_numeric','lc_time',
                
'timezone_abbreviations','default_text_search_config','application_name',
                
'transaction_deferrable','transaction_isolation','transaction_read_only'
        );

and the output from my server with an unmodified postgresql.conf:

              name       |                                         
current_setting
        
-----------------+-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         version         | PostgreSQL 9.3devel on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, 
compiled by gcc (Debian 4.4.5-8) 4.4.5, 64-bit
         client_encoding | UTF8
         lc_collate      | en_US.UTF-8
         lc_ctype        | en_US.UTF-8
         max_connections | 100
         max_stack_depth | 2MB
         server_encoding | UTF8
         shared_buffers  | 128MB
         TimeZone        | US/Eastern
         wal_buffers     | 4MB
        (10 rows)

I am wondering if we should make this query more widely used, perhaps by
putting it in our docs about reporting bugs, or on our website.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <br...@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  + It's impossible for everything to be true. +


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Reply via email to