Feedback-ID: i0fe9450f:Fastmail
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2026 17:40:32 +0900
From: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
To: Zsolt Parragi <zsolt.parragi@percona.com>
Cc: Chao Li <li.evan.chao@gmail.com>,
	PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: gen_guc_tables improvements
Message-ID: <abkTgKpdhhTS5-je@paquier.xyz>
References: 
 <CAN4CZFP=3xUoXb9jpn5OWwicg+rbyrca8-tVmgJsQAa4+OExkw@mail.gmail.com>
 <41FFF107-16B6-4B5A-BFDF-88AEF4B776F4@gmail.com>
 <CAN4CZFNSTSLQ5=haC80i79LR+=bGMbzgfkEtFvPFXZS2JTgBBg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="vNkfn4ZHSDVtbs2X"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAN4CZFNSTSLQ5=haC80i79LR+=bGMbzgfkEtFvPFXZS2JTgBBg@mail.gmail.com>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/abkTgKpdhhTS5-je%40paquier.xyz>
Precedence: bulk


--vNkfn4ZHSDVtbs2X
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

On Mon, Mar 16, 2026 at 05:57:39AM +0000, Zsolt Parragi wrote:
> Yes, but by convention dot is only used by extensions to mark the
> prefix/namespace of the extension (<extension_name>.<guc_name>). None
> of the core server GUCs use it. The point of this script isn't to
> ensure that the generated C code will compile, but to prevent hidden
> errors and ensure we follow existing proper coding conventions.

I am not sure that it is a good idea to enforce that in the script
this way, to be honest.  There may be a point about this new rule
being annoying for forks of the core code, at least, where they would
like to add their own parameters with dots in the names.  I have done
that in the past, as one example, and I am sure that there are
projects out there that do so, meaning the requirement to live with
one more custom patch to make things work if this rule is enforced in
gen_guc_tables.pl.

Saying that, as far as I can see 0001 and 0003 will save some time
when inserting some incorrect data.  The case of duplicated names was
indeed confusing, and 0003 can save from typos when specifying
non-mandatory fields.  So I have applied these two.

0004 has some value here, to save the .dat from copy-paste bloat.  I
am wondering what others think about it.
--
Michael

--vNkfn4ZHSDVtbs2X
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=oO5l
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--vNkfn4ZHSDVtbs2X--