On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 10:31 AM Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 07:39:28AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 10:17:18PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote: > >> This is the main motive behind the patch. > >> > >> Developer options aren't shown in postgresql.conf.sample, which it seems > >> like > >> sometimes people read through quickly, setting a whole bunch of options > >> that > >> sound good, sometimes including this one. And in the best case they then > >> ask > >> on -performance why their queries are slow and we tell them to turn it > >> back off > >> to fix their issues. This changes to no longer put it in .sample, and > >> calling > >> it a "dev" option seems to be the classification and mechanism by which to > >> do > >> that. > > > > +1 > > Hm. I can see the point you are making based on the bug report that > has led to this thread: > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAN0SRDFV=Fv0zXHCGbh7gh=mtfw05xd1x7gjjrzs5qn-tep...@mail.gmail.com > > However, I'd like to think that we can do better than what's proposed > in the patch. There are a couple of things to consider here: > - Should the parameter be renamed to reflect that it should only be > used for testing purposes? > - Should we make more general the description of the developer options > in the docs?
IMO, categorizing force_parallel_mode to DEVELOPER_OPTIONS and moving it to the "Developer Options" section in config.sgml looks appropriate. So, the v2-0004 patch proposed by Justin at [1] looks good to me. If there are any other GUCs that are not meant to be used in production, IMO we could follow the same. [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20210408213812.GA18734%40telsasoft.com With Regards, Bharath Rupireddy. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
