On Mon, Dec 06, 2021 at 03:58:39PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Sun, Dec 05, 2021 at 11:38:05PM -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote: > > Thanks. One more item. The check_guc script currently outputs 68 false > > positives - even though it includes a list of 20 exceptions. This is not > > useful. > > Indeed. Hmm. This script does a couple of things: > 1) Check the format of the options defined in the various lists of > guc.c, which is something people format well, and pgindent also does > a part of this job. > 2) Check that options in the hardcoded list of GUCs in > INTENTIONALLY_NOT_INCLUDED are not included in > postgresql.conf.sample > 3) Check that nothing considered as a parameter in > postgresql.conf.sample is listed in guc.c. > > Your patch removes 1) and 2), but keeps 3) to check for dead > parameter references in postgresql.conf.sample.
The script checks that guc.c and sample config are consistent. I think your undertanding of INTENTIONALLY_NOT_INCLUDED is not right. That's a list of stuff it "avoids reporting" as an suspected error, not an additional list of stuff to checks. INTENTIONALLY_NOT_INCLUDED is a list of stuff like NOT_IN_SAMPLE, which is better done by parsing /NOT_IN_SAMPLE/. > Is check_guc actually run on a periodic basis by somebody? Based on > the amount of false positives that has accumulated over the years, and > what `git grep` can already do for 3), it seems to me that we have > more arguments in favor of just removing it entirely. I saw that Tom updated it within the last 12 months, which I took to mean that it was still being maintained. But I'm okay with removing it. -- Justin