Feedback-ID: i0fe9450f:Fastmail
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2026 07:27:40 +0900
From: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
To: Zsolt Parragi <zsolt.parragi@percona.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: gen_guc_tables improvements
Message-ID: <abcyXD4KOUi6DQ4Q@paquier.xyz>
References: 
 <CAN4CZFP=3xUoXb9jpn5OWwicg+rbyrca8-tVmgJsQAa4+OExkw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="on9ghC3gredbo+iK"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAN4CZFP=3xUoXb9jpn5OWwicg+rbyrca8-tVmgJsQAa4+OExkw@mail.gmail.com>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/abcyXD4KOUi6DQ4Q%40paquier.xyz>
Precedence: bulk


--on9ghC3gredbo+iK
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

On Sun, Mar 15, 2026 at 12:18:53PM +0000, Zsolt Parragi wrote:
> While reviewing a patch, I noticed a typo in guc_params.dat. The code
> compiled and seemingly worked, and I was very surprised that the
> generator script didn't catch the mistake.

Nice.

> I was also thinking about adding validations for the enum/define
> values (config group, flags, guc context), but that requires a
> somewhat fragile extraction code, and I decided to leave that out for
> now.

I'd say no on this one, which would mean going back-and-forth with the
input.  If these fail due to a compilation failure, it's not that bad
either, it would be easy to pin-point that the failures are related to
the values of the GUC, not the overall shape of the data in the input
file.  Saying that, it would depend on how much complexity this adds
and what kind of validation we'd get out of it.  If the additions to
the script are simple like the ones you are proposing here, that would
be probably OK if these improvements catch a bunch of ground-breaking
inconsistencies.  If the whole script would need to be refactored,
probably not.

> What do you think about these changes?

Such sanity checks can save from stupid mistakes, for new or even
seasoned developers of the tree.  When I worked on the wait event
parsing scripts or even the query jumbling for DDLs, I have noticed
that checking ahead the shape of the input files to make sure that
correct C code is produced may not catch all the mistakes, but
catching most of them is more productive than catching none of them.
The GUC script is new as of HEAD, so it seems more useful to do such
adjustments now.
--
Michael

--on9ghC3gredbo+iK
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=Zn6G
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--on9ghC3gredbo+iK--