At Mon, 13 Feb 2023 12:18:07 +0900, Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote in > 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.
Ah, right. I think I faintly had them in my mind. > 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. Okay, I thought that "postgres --help-config" was a sort of developer option, but your explanation above makes sense. > 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 Yeah, that the reason for my thought it was a developer option... > 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 :) Hmm. I didn't directly link GUC_NOT_IN_SAMPLE to being a developer option. But on second thought, it seems that it is. So, the current code looks good for me now. Thanks for the explanation. regards. -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center
