Re: GUC values - recommended way to declare the C variables?
От | Peter Smith |
---|---|
Тема | Re: GUC values - recommended way to declare the C variables? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAHut+Ps91wgaE9P7JORnK_dGq7zPB56WLDJwLNCLgGXxqrh9=Q@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: GUC values - recommended way to declare the C variables? (Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: GUC values - recommended way to declare the C variables?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 3:16 PM Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 11:56:58AM +1100, Peter Smith wrote: > > Patch 0002 adds a sanity-check function called by > > InitializeGUCOptions, as suggested by Tom [2]. This is to ensure that > > the GUC C variable initial values are sensible and/or have not gone > > stale compared with the compiled-in defaults of guc_tables.c. This > > patch also changes some GUC C variable initial values which were > > already found (by this sanity-checker) to be different. > > I like it. > > However it's fails on windows: > > https://cirrus-ci.com/task/5545965036765184 > > running bootstrap script ... FATAL: GUC (PGC_BOOL) update_process_title, boot_val=0, C-var=1 > > Maybe you need to exclude dynamically set gucs ? > See also this other thread, where I added a flag identifying exactly > that. https://commitfest.postgresql.org/40/3736/ > I need to polish that patch some, but maybe it'll be useful for you, too. > Great, this looks very helpful. I will try again tomorrow by skipping over such GUCs. And I noticed a couple of other C initial values I had changed coincide with what you've marked as GUC_DYNAMIC_DEFAULT so I'll restore those to how they were before too. ------ Kind Regards, Peter Smith. Fujitsu Australia
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: