On Thu, Dec 28, 2023 at 10:54 AM Justin Pryzby <pry...@telsasoft.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 29, 2022 at 10:40 AM Justin Pryzby <pry...@telsasoft.com> wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Sep 02, 2022 at 05:24:58PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote: > > > > > > It caused no issue when I changed: > > > > > > > > > > > > /* Check that it's acceptable for the > > > > > > indicated parameter */ > > > > > > if (!parse_and_validate_value(record, name, > > > > > > value, > > > > > > - PGC_S_FILE, > > > > > > ERROR, > > > > > > + PGC_S_TEST, > > > > > > ERROR, > > > > > > &newval, > > > > > > &newextra)) > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure where to go from here. > > > > > > > > > > I'm hoping for some guidance ; this simple change may be naive, but > > > > > I'm not > > > > > sure what a wider change would look like. > > I'm still hoping. > > > > PGC_S_TEST is a better fit, so my question is whether it's really that > > > simple ? > > > > I've added the trivial change as 0001 and re-opened the patch (which ended > > up in January's CF) > > > > If for some reason it's not really as simple as that, then 001 will > > serve as a "straw-man patch" hoping to elicit discussion on that point. > > > From defdb57fe0ec373c1eea8df42f0e1831b3f9c3cc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > > From: Justin Pryzby <pryz...@telsasoft.com> > > Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2022 15:52:11 -0500 > > Subject: [PATCH v6 1/4] WIP: test GUCs from ALTER SYSTEM as PGC_S_TEST not > > FILE > > > > WIP: ALTER SYSTEM should use PGC_S_TEST rather than PGC_S_FILE > > > > Since the value didn't come from a file. Or maybe we should have > > another PGC_S_ value for this, or a flag for 'is a test'. > > --- > > src/backend/utils/misc/guc.c | 2 +- > > src/include/utils/guc.h | 1 + > > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/src/backend/utils/misc/guc.c b/src/backend/utils/misc/guc.c > > index 6f21752b844..ae8810591d6 100644 > > --- a/src/backend/utils/misc/guc.c > > +++ b/src/backend/utils/misc/guc.c > > @@ -4435,7 +4435,7 @@ AlterSystemSetConfigFile(AlterSystemStmt > > *altersysstmt) > > > > /* Check that it's acceptable for the indicated > > parameter */ > > if (!parse_and_validate_value(record, name, value, > > - > > PGC_S_FILE, ERROR, > > + > > PGC_S_TEST, ERROR, > > > > &newval, &newextra)) > > ereport(ERROR, > > > > (errcode(ERRCODE_INVALID_PARAMETER_VALUE), > > This is rebased over my own patch to enable checks for > REGRESSION_TEST_NAME_RESTRICTIONS. > I was reviewing the Patch and came across a minor issue that the Patch does not apply on the current Head. Please provide the updated version of the patch.
Thanks and Regards, Shubham Khanna.
