I wrote:
> On the other hand, it seems pretty silly that it's GUC_REPORT if
> we want to consider it private. I've not checked the git history,
> but I bet that flag was added later with no thought about context.
>
> If we are going to document this then we should at least remove
> the GUC_NO_SHOW_ALL flag and rewrite the comment. I wonder whether
> the GUC_NO_RESET_ALL flag is needed either --- seems like the
> PGC_INTERNAL context protects it sufficiently.
BTW, "session_authorization" has a subset of these same issues:
/* Not for general use --- used by SET SESSION AUTHORIZATION */
{"session_authorization", PGC_USERSET, UNGROUPED,
gettext_noop("Sets the session user name."),
NULL,
GUC_IS_NAME | GUC_REPORT | GUC_NO_SHOW_ALL | GUC_NO_RESET_ALL |
GUC_NOT_IN_SAMPLE | GUC_DISALLOW_IN_FILE | GUC_NOT_WHILE_SEC_REST
},
&session_authorization_string,
NULL,
check_session_authorization, assign_session_authorization, NULL
I wonder why this one is marked USERSET where the other is not.
You'd think both of them need similar special-casing about how
to handle SET.
regards, tom lane
