On Wed, Jul 13, 2022 at 04:49:00PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2022-07-14 08:46:02 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 13, 2022 at 12:30:00PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > > How did you make this list ? Was it by excluding things that failed for you ?
> > >
> > > cfbot is currently failing due to io_concurrency on windows.
> > > I think there are more GUC which should be included here.
> > >
> > > http://cfbot.cputube.org/kyotaro-horiguchi.html
> >
> > FWIW, I am not really a fan of making this test depend on a hardcoded
> > list of GUCs.
>
> I wonder if we should add flags indicating platform dependency etc to guc.c?
> That should allow to remove most of them?
Michael commented on this, but on another thread, so I'm copying and
pasting it here.
On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 08:59:57PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 10:24:43AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > >> * Check consistency of GUC defaults between .sample.conf and pg_settings.boot_val
> > > - It looks like this was pretty active until last October and might
> > > have been ready to apply at least partially? But no further work or
> > > review has happened since.
> >
> > FWIW, I don't find much appealing the addition of two GUC flags for
> > only the sole purpose of that,
>
> The flags seem independently interesting - adding them here follows
> a suggestion Andres made in response to your complaint.
> 20220713234900.z4rniuaerkq34s4v@awork3.anarazel.de
>
> > particularly as we get a stronger
> > dependency between GUCs that can be switched dynamically at
> > initialization and at compile-time.
>
> What do you mean by "stronger dependency between GUCs" ?
I'm still not clear what that means ?
I updated the patch to handle the GUC added at 1671f990d.
--
Justin
