Thread: [HACKERS] A couple of postgresql.conf.sample discrepancies
Hi hackers, Here's a script that reminds you about GUCs you forgot to put in postgresql.conf.sample. It probably needs some work. Does this already happen somewhere else? I guess not, because it found two discrepancies: $ ./src/tools/check_sample_config.pl enable_gathermerge appears in guc.c but not in postgresql.conf.sample trace_recovery_messages appears in guc.c but not in postgresql.conf.sample I think the first should be listed in postgresql.conf.sample, but the second should probably be flagged as GUC_NOT_IN_SAMPLE. See attached. -- Thomas Munro http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Attachment
Hi Thomas, > Here's a script that reminds you about GUCs you forgot to put in > postgresql.conf.sample. It probably needs some work. Does this > already happen somewhere else? I guess not, because it found two > discrepancies: > > $ ./src/tools/check_sample_config.pl > enable_gathermerge appears in guc.c but not in postgresql.conf.sample > trace_recovery_messages appears in guc.c but not in postgresql.conf.sample I like the idea. However maybe it worth considering to turn it into a TAP test? Otherwise there is a good chance everybody will forget to run it. For similar reason I would advise to add this patch to the next commitfest. -- Best regards, Aleksander Alekseev
On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 10:27 AM, Aleksander Alekseev <a.alekseev@postgrespro.ru> wrote: >> Here's a script that reminds you about GUCs you forgot to put in >> postgresql.conf.sample. It probably needs some work. Does this >> already happen somewhere else? I guess not, because it found two >> discrepancies: >> >> $ ./src/tools/check_sample_config.pl >> enable_gathermerge appears in guc.c but not in postgresql.conf.sample >> trace_recovery_messages appears in guc.c but not in postgresql.conf.sample > > I like the idea. However maybe it worth considering to turn it into a > TAP test? Otherwise there is a good chance everybody will forget to run > it. For similar reason I would advise to add this patch to the next > commitfest. Bonus points if the script can detect that a parameter's comment forgets to include "(change requires restart)". -- Michael
On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 4:27 AM, Aleksander Alekseev <a.alekseev@postgrespro.ru> wrote: > I like the idea. However maybe it worth considering to turn it into a > TAP test? Otherwise there is a good chance everybody will forget to run > it. For similar reason I would advise to add this patch to the next > commitfest. Instead of adding it to a TAP test, I think we should add it to the build process, so you get a compile failure if it finds any problems. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company