On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 8:23 AM Dave Cramer <pg@fastcrypt.com> wrote:
> See attached for an initial patch. If this is an acceptable way to go I will add tests and documentation
And clean up the code? Doesn't look crazy on a quick glance but I
think I see at least half a dozen coding style problems. More
substantively:
1. I don't really like putting 'guc' into an externally visible name;
that's why I suggested 'report'.
2. I haven't really scrutinized whether what SetConfigReport is an OK
way of implementing this. That probably needs some study. It may be
fine.
3. I'm not sure that just ignoring any GUCs we don't find is the right
thing. I'm also not sure that it's the wrong thing, but it might be.
My question is: what if there's an extension-owned GUC in play? The
library probably isn't even loaded at this stage, unless it's in
shared_preload_libraries.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
