Re: GUC names in messages

On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 2:11 PM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 06:27:04PM +1100, Peter Smith wrote:
> > There may be some changes I've missed, but hopefully, this is a nudge
> > in the right direction.
>
> Thanks for spending some time on that.
>
>     <para>
> +    In messages containing configuration variable names, do not include quotes
> +    when the names are visibly not English natural words, such as when they
> +    have underscores or are all-uppercase or have mixed case. Otherwise, quotes
> +    must be added.  Do include quotes in a message where an arbitrary variable
> +    name is to be expanded.
> +   </para>
>
> That seems to describe clearly the consensus reached on the thread
> (quotes for GUCs that are single terms, no quotes for names that are
> obviously parameters).
>
> In terms of messages that have predictible names, 0002 moves in the
> needle in the right direction.  There seem to be more:
> src/backend/postmaster/bgworker.c:  errhint("Consider increasing the
> configuration parameter \"max_worker_processes\".")));
> contrib/pg_prewarm/autoprewarm.c:  errhint("Consider increasing
> configuration parameter \"max_worker_processes\".")));

Done in patch 0002

>
> Things like parse_and_validate_value() and set_config_option_ext()
> include log strings about GUC and these use quotes.  Could these areas
> be made smarter with a routine to check if quotes are applied
> automatically when we have a "simple" GUC name, aka I guess made of
> only lower-case characters?  This could be done with a islower() on
> the string name, for instance.

See what you think of patch 0003

~~

PSA v2 patches.

======
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia