A couple of postgresql.conf.sample discrepancies

Started by Thomas Munroabout 9 years ago4 messageshackers
Beta feature

Hackorum builds and tests every patch posted to the lists, not only commitfest submissions. This is Hackorum's own CI rather than the PostgreSQL project's, and it is still under testing - please report anything that looks wrong.

won't retrysuccessCI history

You can run a PostgreSQL built from this patch straight from Docker, with no checkout and no build:

docker run --rm -p 5432:5432 ghcr.io/hackorum-dev/postgres-patch:t37167
psql -h localhost -U postgres

Built from patchset v1 (message #1), July 28, 2026 at 05:48 AM.

Every patchset is also pushed to a branch of our PostgreSQL fork, so you can check out the same tree CI built. Without a PostgreSQL checkout:

git clone --branch t37167_1 https://github.com/hackorum-dev/postgres.git

In a checkout you already have, add the fork once:

git remote add hackorum https://github.com/hackorum-dev/postgres.git

then, for this patchset and every later one:

git fetch hackorum t37167_1 && git checkout t37167_1

Patchset v1 (message #1) is on t37167_1

Jump to latest
#1Thomas Munro
thomas.munro@gmail.com

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

Attachments:

t37167_1
fix-sample-config.patchapplication/octet-stream; name=fix-sample-config.patchDownload+3-1
check-sample-config-v1.patchapplication/octet-stream; name=check-sample-config-v1.patchDownload+79-0
#2Aleksander Alekseev
aleksander@timescale.com
In reply to: Thomas Munro (#1)
Re: A couple of postgresql.conf.sample discrepancies

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

#3Michael Paquier
michael@paquier.xyz
In reply to: Aleksander Alekseev (#2)
Re: A couple of postgresql.conf.sample discrepancies

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

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

#4Robert Haas
robertmhaas@gmail.com
In reply to: Aleksander Alekseev (#2)
Re: A couple of postgresql.conf.sample discrepancies

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

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers