Re: is_superuser is not documented

> Thanks for the patch!
> 
> 
> +     <varlistentry id="guc-is-superuser" xreflabel="is_superuser">
> +      <term><varname>is_superuser</varname> (<type>boolean</type>)
> 
> You need to add this entry just after that of "in_hot_standby" because
> the descriptions of preset parameters should be placed in alphabetical
> order in the docs.
> 
> 
> +       <para>
> +        Reports whether the user is superuser or not.
> 
> Isn't it better to add "current" before "user", e.g.,
> "Reports whether the current user is a superuser"?
> 
> 
>          /* Not for general use --- used by SET SESSION AUTHORIZATION */
> -        {"is_superuser", PGC_INTERNAL, UNGROUPED,
> +        {"is_superuser", PGC_INTERNAL, PRESET_OPTIONS,
> 
> This comment should be rewritten or removed because "Not for general
> use" part is not true.
> 
> 
> -            GUC_REPORT | GUC_NO_SHOW_ALL | GUC_NO_RESET_ALL |
> GUC_NOT_IN_SAMPLE | GUC_DISALLOW_IN_FILE
> +            GUC_REPORT | GUC_NO_RESET_ALL | GUC_NOT_IN_SAMPLE | 
> GUC_DISALLOW_IN_FILE
> 
> As Tom commented upthread, GUC_NO_RESET_ALL flag should be removed
> because it's not necessary when PGC_INTERNAL context (i.e., in this 
> context,
> RESET ALL is prohibit by defaulted) is used.
> 
> 
> With the patch, make check failed. You need to update
> src/test/regress/expected/guc.out.
> 
> 
>        <varlistentry>
>         <term><literal>IS_SUPERUSER</literal></term>
>         <listitem>
>          <para>
>           True if the current role has superuser privileges.
>          </para>
> 
> I found that the docs of SET command has the above description about
> is_superuser.
> This description seems useless if we document the is_superuser GUC
> itself. So isn't
> it better to remove this description?

Thank you for your review.
I create new patch add_document_is_superuser_v2.
please check it.

Regards,
Kotaro Kawamoto