On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 11:27:58AM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote: > I think currently the output by --describe-config can be used only for > consulting while editing a (possiblly broken) config file. Thus I > think it's no use showing GIC_DISALLOW_IN_FILE items there unless we > use help_config() for an on-session use. > > On the other hand, don't we need to remove the condition > GUC_NOT_IN_SAMPLE from displayStruct? I think that help_config() > should show a value if it is marked as !GUC_DISALLOW_IN_FILE even if > it is GUC_NOT_IN_SAMPLE. I'm not sure whether there's any variable > that are marked that way, though.
As in marked with GUC_NOT_IN_SAMPLE but not GUC_DISALLOW_IN_FILE? There are quite a lot, developer GUCs being one (say ignore_invalid_pages). We don't want to list them in the sample file so as common users don't play with them, still they make sense if listed in a file. If you add a check meaning that GUC_DISALLOW_IN_FILE implies GUC_NOT_IN_SAMPLE, where one change would need to be applied to config_file as all the other GUC_DISALLOW_IN_FILE GUCs already do that, you could remove GUC_DISALLOW_IN_FILE. However, GUC_NOT_IN_SAMPLE should be around to not expose options, we don't want common users to know too much about. The question about how much people rely on --describe-config these days is a good one, so perhaps there could be an argument in removing GUC_NOT_IN_SAMPLE from the set. TBH, I would be really surprised that anybody able to use a developer option writes an configuration file in an incorrect format and needs to use this option, though :) -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
