Re: Fix GUC_NO_SHOW_ALL test scenario in 003_check_guc.pl - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Justin Pryzby
Subject Re: Fix GUC_NO_SHOW_ALL test scenario in 003_check_guc.pl
Date
Msg-id 20230113140221.GX9837@telsasoft.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Fix GUC_NO_SHOW_ALL test scenario in 003_check_guc.pl  (Nitin Jadhav <nitinjadhavpostgres@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Fix GUC_NO_SHOW_ALL test scenario in 003_check_guc.pl
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 06:15:38PM +0530, Nitin Jadhav wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> The commit 7265dbffad7feac6ea9d373828583b5d3d152e07 has added a script
> in src/backend/utils/misc/check_guc that cross-checks the consistency
> of the GUCs with postgresql.conf.sample, making sure that its format
> is in line with what guc.c has. As per the commit message, the
> parameters which are not listed as NOT_IN_SAMPLE in guc.c should be
> present in postgresql.conf.sample. But I have observed a test case
> failure when the parameters which are listed as GUC_NO_SHOW_ALL in
> guc.c and if it is present in postgresql.conf.sample. I feel this
> behaviour is not expected and this should be fixed. I spent some time
> on the analysis and found that query [1] is used to fetch all the
> parameters which are not listed as NOT_IN_SAMPLE. But the pg_settings
> view does not return the parameters listed as GUC_NO_SHOW_ALL. Hence
> these records will be missed. Please share your thoughts. I would like
> to work on the patch if a fix is required.

Looks like you're right ; show_all_settings() elides settings marked
"noshow".

Do you know how you'd implement a fix ?

-- 
Justin



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com"
Date:
Subject: BF animal malleefowl reported an failure in 001_password.pl
Next
From: Reid Thompson
Date:
Subject: Re: Add the ability to limit the amount of memory that can be allocated to backends.