On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 04:12:07PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote: > (sigh..) As the result, no need to fix in this area for now, and I > don't think there's any generic and reliable way to detect > inconsistencies of guc variable definitions.
Hmm. Making the automation test painless in terms of maintenance consists in making it require zero manual filtering in the list of GUCs involved, while still being useful in what it can detect. The units involved in a GUC make the checks between postgresql.conf.sample and pg_settings.boot_value annoying because they would require extra calculations depending on the unit with a logic maintained in the test. I may be missing something obvious, of course, but it seems to me that as long as you fetch the values from postgresql.conf.sample and cross-check them with pg_settings.boot_value for GUCs that do not have units, the maintenance would be painless, while still being useful (it would cover the case of enums, for one). The values need to be lower-cased for consistency, similarly to the GUC names. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
