From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>
cc: "leiyanliang@highgo.com" <leiyanliang@highgo.com>,
        "pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org" <pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: BUG #17077: about three parameters in postgresql 13.3
In-reply-to: 
 <CALj2ACWNacYVcZx4evp+KzQWXsXcWzRE9eewjpAJxNB+xCsKWA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <17077-ade8e166a01e1374@postgresql.org>
 <202107171236202362593@highgo.com> <56876.1626531624@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CALj2ACWNacYVcZx4evp+KzQWXsXcWzRE9eewjpAJxNB+xCsKWA@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Bharath Rupireddy
 <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>
	message dated "Sat, 17 Jul 2021 20:20:39 +0530"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <66574.1626534254.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2021 11:04:14 -0400
Message-ID: <66575.1626534254@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/66575.1626534254%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com> writes:
> On Sat, Jul 17, 2021 at 7:50 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> The code is operating as designed.  It does seem odd that there's no
>> mention of these variables in the documentation, though.

> I think the point that the 3 GUCs have no explanation in the docs but
> still show up in the pg_settings was discussed at [1]. There, we
> wanted to add GUC_NO_SHOW_ALL for 3 of them. I still would prefer it
> because the 3 GUCs will only be used internally(?).

I've concluded that we should just document them (and am working
on that right now).  It's certainly true that there is a use-case
for reading them: libpq does "SHOW transaction_read_only", for
example.  And since we've gone to the trouble of making SET of one
of these equivalent to SET TRANSACTION, we should probably just
document that it is.

			regards, tom lane