Re: How about a psql backslash command to show GUCs?

On 6/8/22 1:26 PM, Tom Lane wrote: "Jonathan S. Katz" writes: Interesting. OK, I'd say let's keep the behavior that's in the patch. Pushed then. Excellent -- thank you! Jonathan OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: How about a psql backslash command to show GUCs?

"Jonathan S. Katz" writes: > Interesting. OK, I'd say let's keep the behavior that's in the patch. Pushed then. regards, tom lane

Re: How about a psql backslash command to show GUCs?

On 6/7/22 10:57 PM, Tom Lane wrote: "Jonathan S. Katz" writes: I don't know how frequently issues around "max_stack_depth" being too small are reported -- I'd be curious to know that -- but I don't have any strong arguments against allowing the behavior you describe based on our current docs.

Re: How about a psql backslash command to show GUCs?

"Jonathan S. Katz" writes: > I don't know how frequently issues around "max_stack_depth" being too > small are reported -- I'd be curious to know that -- but I don't have > any strong arguments against allowing the behavior you describe based on > our current docs. I can't recall any recent

Re: How about a psql backslash command to show GUCs?

On 6/7/22 7:58 PM, Tom Lane wrote: I wrote: The attached draft patch makes the following changes: Here's a v2 that polishes the loose ends: Thanks! I reviewed and did some basic testing locally. I did not see any of the generated defaults. (I didn't do anything about in_hot_standby,

Re: How about a psql backslash command to show GUCs?

On 6/7/22 1:02 PM, Tom Lane wrote: In any case, I expect that we'd apply this patch only to HEAD, which means that when using psql's \dconfig against a pre-v15 server, you'd still see these settings that we're trying to hide. That doesn't bother me too much, but maybe some would find it

Re: How about a psql backslash command to show GUCs?

I wrote: > The attached draft patch makes the following changes: Here's a v2 that polishes the loose ends: > (I didn't do anything about in_hot_standby, which is set through > a hack rather than via set_config_option; not sure whether we want > to do anything there, or what it should be if we

Re: How about a psql backslash command to show GUCs?

Christoph Berg writes: > in_hot_standby sounds very useful to have in that list. I thought about this some more and concluded that we're blaming the messenger. There's nothing wrong with \dconfig's filtering rule; rather, it's the fault of the backend for mislabeling a lot of run-time-computed

Re: How about a psql backslash command to show GUCs?

Re: Jonathan S. Katz > On 6/7/22 10:26 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > I think some of these could be interesting if they deviate from the default > (e.g. "in_hot_standby") as it will give the user context on the current > state of the system. > > However, something like that is still fairly easy to

Re: How about a psql backslash command to show GUCs?

On 6/7/22 10:26 AM, Robert Haas wrote: On Mon, Jun 6, 2022 at 5:02 PM Tom Lane wrote: I think a reasonable case can be made for excluding "internal" GUCs on the grounds that (a) they cannot be set, and therefore (b) whatever value they have might as well be considered the default. I agree.

Re: How about a psql backslash command to show GUCs?

On Mon, Jun 6, 2022 at 5:02 PM Tom Lane wrote: > I think a reasonable case can be made for excluding "internal" GUCs > on the grounds that (a) they cannot be set, and therefore (b) whatever > value they have might as well be considered the default. I agree. -- Robert Haas EDB:

Re: How about a psql backslash command to show GUCs?

Robert Haas writes: > I think part of the problem here, though, is that one can imagine a > variety of charters that might be useful. A user could want to see the > parameters that have values in their session that differ from the > system defaults, or parameters that have values which differ

Re: How about a psql backslash command to show GUCs?

> On Jun 6, 2022, at 9:02 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > > Thoughts? I think it depends on your mental model of what \dconfig is showing you. Is it showing you the list of configs that you can SET, or just the list of all configs?

Re: How about a psql backslash command to show GUCs?

On Mon, Jun 6, 2022 at 12:02 PM Tom Lane wrote: > Thoughts? This all seems pretty subjective. As someone who sometimes supports customers, I usually kind of want the customer to give me all the settings, just in case something that didn't seem important to them (or to whoever coded up the

Re: How about a psql backslash command to show GUCs?

Justin Pryzby writes: > I noticed this is showing "pre-computed" gucs, like: > shared_memory_size| 149MB > shared_memory_size_in_huge_pages | 75 > I'm not opposed to that, but I wonder if that's what's intended / best. I had suggested upthread that we might want to hide items

Re: How about a psql backslash command to show GUCs?

On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 11:19:40AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > "Jonathan S. Katz" writes: > > On 4/11/22 4:11 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > >> This idea does somewhat address my unhappiness upthread about printing > >> values with source = 'internal', but I see that it gets confused by > >> some GUCs with

Re: How about a psql backslash command to show GUCs?

"Jonathan S. Katz" writes: > On 4/12/22 1:00 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Yeah, most of what shows up in a minimally-configured installation is >> postmaster-computed settings like config_file, rather than things >> that were actually set by the DBA. Personally I'd rather hide the >> ones that have

Re: How about a psql backslash command to show GUCs?

On 4/12/22 1:00 PM, Tom Lane wrote: "Jonathan S. Katz" writes: On 4/12/22 11:19 AM, Tom Lane wrote: It'd just look like this, I think. I see from looking at guc.c that boot_val can be NULL, so we'd better use IS DISTINCT FROM. I tested it and I like this a lot better, at least it's much

Re: How about a psql backslash command to show GUCs?

"Jonathan S. Katz" writes: > On 4/12/22 11:19 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> It'd just look like this, I think. I see from looking at guc.c that >> boot_val can be NULL, so we'd better use IS DISTINCT FROM. > I tested it and I like this a lot better, at least it's much more > consolidated. They all

Re: How about a psql backslash command to show GUCs?

On 4/12/22 11:19 AM, Tom Lane wrote: "Jonathan S. Katz" writes: On 4/11/22 4:11 PM, Tom Lane wrote: This idea does somewhat address my unhappiness upthread about printing values with source = 'internal', but I see that it gets confused by some GUCs with custom show hooks, like

Re: How about a psql backslash command to show GUCs?

"Jonathan S. Katz" writes: > On 4/11/22 4:11 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> This idea does somewhat address my unhappiness upthread about printing >> values with source = 'internal', but I see that it gets confused by >> some GUCs with custom show hooks, like unix_socket_permissions. >> Maybe it needs to

Re: How about a psql backslash command to show GUCs?

On 4/11/22 4:11 PM, Tom Lane wrote: "Jonathan S. Katz" writes: My question is if we're only going to list out the settings that are customized, are we going to: 1. Hide a setting if it matches a default value, even if a user set it to be the default value? OR 2. Comment out all of the

Re: How about a psql backslash command to show GUCs?

Christoph Berg writes: > Plus maybe making initdb not set values to their default if the auto probing > ends up at that values. Seems a bit fragile: we'd have to make sure that initdb knew what the boot_val is. IIRC, some of those are not necessarily immutable constants, so there'd be room for

Re: How about a psql backslash command to show GUCs?

Plus maybe making initdb not set values to their default if the auto probing ends up at that values. Christoph

Re: How about a psql backslash command to show GUCs?

"Jonathan S. Katz" writes: > My question is if we're only going to list out the settings that are > customized, are we going to: > 1. Hide a setting if it matches a default value, even if a user set it > to be the default value? OR > 2. Comment out all of the settings in a generated

Re: How about a psql backslash command to show GUCs?

On 4/11/22 3:12 PM, Tom Lane wrote: "Jonathan S. Katz" writes: On 4/9/22 12:27 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Sure, but then you do "\dconfig *". With there being several hundred GUCs (and no doubt more coming), I'm not sure that "show me every GUC" is a common use-case at all, let alone so common as

Re: How about a psql backslash command to show GUCs?

"Jonathan S. Katz" writes: > On 4/9/22 12:27 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Sure, but then you do "\dconfig *". With there being several hundred >> GUCs (and no doubt more coming), I'm not sure that "show me every GUC" >> is a common use-case at all, let alone so common as to deserve being >> the

Re: How about a psql backslash command to show GUCs?

On 4/9/22 12:27 PM, Tom Lane wrote: "Jonathan S. Katz" writes: -1, at least for the moment. Sometimes a user doesn't know what they're looking for coupled with being unaware of what the default value is. If a setting is set to a default value and that value is the problematic setting, a user

Re: How about a psql backslash command to show GUCs?

On 4/9/22 16:31, Tom Lane wrote: Christoph Berg writes: I would think that if \dconfig showed the non-default settings only, it would be much more useful; the full list would still be available with "\dconfig *". This is in line with \dt only showing tables on the search_path, and "\dt *.*"

Re: How about a psql backslash command to show GUCs?

On Sat, Apr 9, 2022 at 10:31 AM Tom Lane wrote: > Christoph Berg writes: > > The name has evolved from \dcp over various longer \d-things to the > > more verbose \dconfig. How about we evolve it even more and just call > > it \config? > > I think people felt that it should be part of the \d

Re: How about a psql backslash command to show GUCs?

On Sat, Apr 9, 2022 at 9:27 AM Tom Lane wrote: > "Jonathan S. Katz" writes: > > -1, at least for the moment. Sometimes a user doesn't know what they're > > looking for coupled with being unaware of what the default value is. If > > a setting is set to a default value and that value is the

Re: How about a psql backslash command to show GUCs?

"Jonathan S. Katz" writes: > -1, at least for the moment. Sometimes a user doesn't know what they're > looking for coupled with being unaware of what the default value is. If > a setting is set to a default value and that value is the problematic > setting, a user should be able to see that

Re: How about a psql backslash command to show GUCs?

On 4/9/22 11:58 AM, Julien Rouhaud wrote: On Sat, Apr 09, 2022 at 10:31:17AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Christoph Berg writes: I would think that if \dconfig showed the non-default settings only, it would be much more useful; the full list would still be available with "\dconfig *". This is in

Re: How about a psql backslash command to show GUCs?

On Sat, Apr 09, 2022 at 10:31:17AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Christoph Berg writes: > > > I would think that if \dconfig showed the non-default settings only, > > it would be much more useful; the full list would still be available > > with "\dconfig *". This is in line with \dt only showing

Re: How about a psql backslash command to show GUCs?

Christoph Berg writes: > The name has evolved from \dcp over various longer \d-things to the > more verbose \dconfig. How about we evolve it even more and just call > it \config? I think people felt that it should be part of the \d family. Also, because we have \connect and \conninfo, you'd need

Re: How about a psql backslash command to show GUCs?

Re: Tom Lane > Looks like the consensus has shifted to \dconfig. I'll do it like that. A bit late to the party, but two more ideas: The name has evolved from \dcp over various longer \d-things to the more verbose \dconfig. How about we evolve it even more and just call it \config? That would

Re: How about a psql backslash command to show GUCs?

Pavel Stehule writes: > čt 7. 4. 2022 v 19:04 odesílatel David G. Johnston < > david.g.johns...@gmail.com> napsal: >> \dconfig[+] gets my vote. I was going to say "conf" just isn't common >> jargon to say or write; but the one place it is - file extensions - is >> relevant and common. But

Re: How about a psql backslash command to show GUCs?

čt 7. 4. 2022 v 19:04 odesílatel David G. Johnston < david.g.johns...@gmail.com> napsal: > On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 9:58 AM Joe Conway wrote: > >> On 4/7/22 12:37, Tom Lane wrote: >> > Mark Dilger writes: >> >>> On Apr 7, 2022, at 9:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> >>> I wouldn't >> >>> fight too hard

Re: How about a psql backslash command to show GUCs?

On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 9:58 AM Joe Conway wrote: > On 4/7/22 12:37, Tom Lane wrote: > > Mark Dilger writes: > >>> On Apr 7, 2022, at 9:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > >>> I wouldn't > >>> fight too hard if people want to lengthen it to \dconfig for > consistency > >>> with set_config(). > > > >> I'd

Re: How about a psql backslash command to show GUCs?

On 4/7/22 12:37, Tom Lane wrote: Mark Dilger writes: On Apr 7, 2022, at 9:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote: I wouldn't fight too hard if people want to lengthen it to \dconfig for consistency with set_config(). I'd prefer \dconfig, but if the majority on this list view that as pedantically forcing

Re: How about a psql backslash command to show GUCs?

On 4/7/22 12:42 PM, Mark Dilger wrote: On Apr 7, 2022, at 9:37 AM, Tom Lane wrote: Maybe I'm atypical, but I'm probably going to use tab completion either way, so it's not really more keystrokes. Same here, because after tab-completing \dcon\t\t into \dconfig, I'm likely to also

Re: How about a psql backslash command to show GUCs?

> On Apr 7, 2022, at 9:37 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > > Maybe I'm atypical, but I'm probably going to use tab completion > either way, so it's not really more keystrokes. Same here, because after tab-completing \dcon\t\t into \dconfig, I'm likely to also tab-complete to get the list of

Re: How about a psql backslash command to show GUCs?

Mark Dilger writes: >> On Apr 7, 2022, at 9:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> I wouldn't >> fight too hard if people want to lengthen it to \dconfig for consistency >> with set_config(). > I'd prefer \dconfig, but if the majority on this list view that as > pedantically forcing them to type more, I'm

Re: How about a psql backslash command to show GUCs?

> On Apr 7, 2022, at 9:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > > I wouldn't > fight too hard if people want to lengthen it to \dconfig for consistency > with set_config(). I'd prefer \dconfig, but if the majority on this list view that as pedantically forcing them to type more, I'm not going to kick up a

Re: How about a psql backslash command to show GUCs?

On 4/7/22 12:22 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Justin Pryzby writes: SHOW and current_setting() translate to human units, which is particularly useful for some settings, like those with units of 8k pages. Is it better to use that "cooked" version for display in the backslash command instead of the raw

Re: How about a psql backslash command to show GUCs?

Mark Dilger writes: > We have too many synonyms for configuration parameters. "config", "guc", > "parameter", and "setting" are already in use. I thought we agreed on the > other thread that "setting" means the value, and "parameter" is the thing > being set. Right, so the suggestion of

Re: How about a psql backslash command to show GUCs?

Justin Pryzby writes: > SHOW and current_setting() translate to human units, which is particularly > useful for some settings, like those with units of 8k pages. > Is it better to use that "cooked" version for display in the backslash command > instead of the raw view from pg_settings ? Oh,

Re: How about a psql backslash command to show GUCs?

> On Apr 7, 2022, at 6:21 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > \dconf seems fine to me We have too many synonyms for configuration parameters. "config", "guc", "parameter", and "setting" are already in use. I thought we agreed on the other thread that "setting" means the value, and "parameter"

Re: How about a psql backslash command to show GUCs?

On 4/7/22 11:10 AM, David G. Johnston wrote: On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 7:56 AM Tom Lane > wrote: "Jonathan S. Katz" mailto:jk...@postgresql.org>> writes: > Maybe to appeal to all crowds, we say "list configuration parameters > (GUCs)"? I'm in the camp

Re: How about a psql backslash command to show GUCs?

On Wed, Apr 06, 2022 at 11:02:54PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > "Jonathan S. Katz" writes: > > +1 for \dconf > > Here's a draft patch using \dconf. No tests or docs yet. The patch as written is a thin layer around pg_settings. SHOW and current_setting() translate to human units, which is

Re: How about a psql backslash command to show GUCs?

st 6. 4. 2022 v 19:49 odesílatel Tom Lane napsal: > > It's not difficult to get psql to show you the current value > of a single GUC --- "SHOW" does that fine, and it has tab > completion support for the GUC name. However, I very often > find myself resorting to the much more tedious > > select

Re: How about a psql backslash command to show GUCs?

On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 7:56 AM Tom Lane wrote: > "Jonathan S. Katz" writes: > > > Maybe to appeal to all crowds, we say "list configuration parameters > > (GUCs)"? > > I'm in the camp that says that GUC is not an acronym we wish to expose > to end users. > > I am too. In any case, either go

Re: How about a psql backslash command to show GUCs?

"Jonathan S. Katz" writes: > On 4/7/22 8:36 AM, Joe Conway wrote: >> I will say that I care about context far more often than unit or type >> though, so from my point of view I would switch them around with respect >> to which is only shown with verbose. > I disagree somewhat -- I agree the

Re: How about a psql backslash command to show GUCs?

On 4/7/22 8:36 AM, Joe Conway wrote: On 4/6/22 23:02, Tom Lane wrote: "Jonathan S. Katz" writes: +1 for \dconf Here's a draft patch using \dconf.  No tests or docs yet. WFM -- using some form of \d makes more sense than \s, and I can't think of anything better that \dconf. I will say

Re: How about a psql backslash command to show GUCs?

On 4/6/22 23:25, David Rowley wrote: > I also find myself querying pg_settings all too often. More typing > than I'd like. > > On Thu, 7 Apr 2022 at 06:40, Tom Lane wrote: >> I do agree that \show might be a bad choice, the reason being that >> the adjacent \set command is for psql variables

Re: How about a psql backslash command to show GUCs?

On 4/6/22 23:02, Tom Lane wrote: "Jonathan S. Katz" writes: +1 for \dconf Here's a draft patch using \dconf. No tests or docs yet. WFM -- using some form of \d makes more sense than \s, and I can't think of anything better that \dconf. I will say that I care about context far more

Re: How about a psql backslash command to show GUCs?

On 06.04.2022 20:48, Tom Lane wrote: However, I very often find myself resorting to the much more tedious select * from pg_settings where name like '%foo%'; In the discussion about adding privileges for GUCs [1], there was a proposal to add a new psql backslash command to show GUCs, which

Re: How about a psql backslash command to show GUCs?

I also find myself querying pg_settings all too often. More typing than I'd like. On Thu, 7 Apr 2022 at 06:40, Tom Lane wrote: > I do agree that \show might be a bad choice, the reason being that > the adjacent \set command is for psql variables not GUCs; if we > had a \show I'd sort of expect

Re: How about a psql backslash command to show GUCs?

"Jonathan S. Katz" writes: > +1 for \dconf Here's a draft patch using \dconf. No tests or docs yet. regards, tom lane diff --git a/src/bin/psql/command.c b/src/bin/psql/command.c index 079f4a1a76..bbf4a5a44e 100644 --- a/src/bin/psql/command.c +++

Re: How about a psql backslash command to show GUCs?

On 4/6/22 9:18 PM, David G. Johnston wrote: On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 6:16 PM Tom Lane I agree that \d-something makes the most sense from a functionality standpoint.  But I don't want to make the name too long, even if we do have tab completion to help. \dconf maybe? I don't

Re: How about a psql backslash command to show GUCs?

On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 6:16 PM Tom Lane wrote: > "Jonathan S. Katz" writes: > > I am a bit torn between "\dcp" (or \dsetting / \dconfig? we don't > > necessarily need for it to be super short) and "\sc". Certainly with > > pattern matching the interface for the "\d" commands would fit that > >

Re: How about a psql backslash command to show GUCs?

"Jonathan S. Katz" writes: > I am a bit torn between "\dcp" (or \dsetting / \dconfig? we don't > necessarily need for it to be super short) and "\sc". Certainly with > pattern matching the interface for the "\d" commands would fit that > pattern. "\sc" would make sense for a thorough

Re: How about a psql backslash command to show GUCs?

> On Apr 6, 2022, at 2:34 PM, Jonathan S. Katz wrote: > > "\sc" would make sense I originally wrote the command as \dcp (describe configuration parameter) because \dp (describe parameter) wasn't available. The thing we're showing is a "parameter", not a "config". If we're going to use a

Re: How about a psql backslash command to show GUCs?

On 4/6/22 2:40 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Joe Conway writes: No as sure about \show though. That seems like it could be confused with showing other stuff. Maybe consistent with \sf[+] and \sv[+] we could add \sc[+]? Hmm ... my first reaction to that was "no, it should be \sp for 'parameter'". But

Re: How about a psql backslash command to show GUCs?

On Wed, 6 Apr 2022 at 13:50, Tom Lane wrote: > > when I want to see some related parameters, or when I'm a bit > fuzzy on the exact name of the parameter. Not only is this > a lot of typing, but unless I'm willing to type even more to > avoid using "*", I'll get a wall of mostly unreadable text,

Re: How about a psql backslash command to show GUCs?

Joe Conway writes: > No as sure about \show though. That seems like it could be confused with > showing other stuff. Maybe consistent with \sf[+] and \sv[+] we could > add \sc[+]? Hmm ... my first reaction to that was "no, it should be \sp for 'parameter'". But with the neighboring \sf for

Re: How about a psql backslash command to show GUCs?

On 4/6/22 13:58, Alvaro Herrera wrote: On 2022-Apr-06, Tom Lane wrote: However, I very often find myself resorting to the much more tedious select * from pg_settings where name like '%foo%'; when I want to see some related parameters, or when I'm a bit fuzzy on the exact name of the

Re: How about a psql backslash command to show GUCs?

> On Apr 6, 2022, at 10:48 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > > So does anyone else like this idea? Privileges on targets other than parameters have a \d command to show the privileges, as listed in doc/src/sgml/ddl.sgml. There isn't an obvious reason for omitting parameters from the list so covered.

Re: How about a psql backslash command to show GUCs?

On 2022-Apr-06, Tom Lane wrote: > However, I very often find myself resorting to the much more tedious > > select * from pg_settings where name like '%foo%'; > > when I want to see some related parameters, or when I'm a bit > fuzzy on the exact name of the parameter. Been there many times, so

Re: How about a psql backslash command to show GUCs?

hi st 6. 4. 2022 v 19:49 odesílatel Tom Lane napsal: > It's not difficult to get psql to show you the current value > of a single GUC --- "SHOW" does that fine, and it has tab > completion support for the GUC name. However, I very often > find myself resorting to the much more tedious > >

How about a psql backslash command to show GUCs?

It's not difficult to get psql to show you the current value of a single GUC --- "SHOW" does that fine, and it has tab completion support for the GUC name. However, I very often find myself resorting to the much more tedious select * from pg_settings where name like '%foo%'; when I want to see