Re: How about a psql backslash command to show GUCs?

Christoph Berg <myon@debian.org> writes:
> in_hot_standby sounds very useful to have in that list.

I thought about this some more and concluded that we're blaming the
messenger.  There's nothing wrong with \dconfig's filtering rule;
rather, it's the fault of the backend for mislabeling a lot of
run-time-computed values as source=PGC_S_OVERRIDE when they really
are dynamic defaults.  Now in fairness, I think a lot of that code
predates the invention of PGC_S_DYNAMIC_DEFAULT, so there was not
a better way when it was written ... but there is now.

The attached draft patch makes the following changes:

* All run-time calculations of PGC_INTERNAL variables are relabeled
as PGC_S_DYNAMIC_DEFAULT.  There is not any higher source value
that we'd allow to set such a variable, so this is sufficient.
(I didn't do anything about in_hot_standby, which is set through
a hack rather than via set_config_option; not sure whether we want
to do anything there, or what it should be if we do.)  The net
effect of this compared to upthread examples is to hide
shared_memory_size and shared_memory_size_in_huge_pages from \dconfig.

* The auto-tune value of wal_buffers is relabeled as PGC_S_DYNAMIC_DEFAULT
if possible (but due to pre-existing hacks, we might have to force it).
This will hide that one too as long as you didn't manually set it.

* The rlimit-derived value of max_stack_depth is likewise relabeled
as PGC_S_DYNAMIC_DEFAULT, resolving the complaint Jonathan had upthread.
But now that we have a way to hide this, I'm having second thoughts
about whether we should.  If you are on a platform that's forcing an
unreasonably small stack size, it'd be good if \dconfig told you so.
Could it be sane to label that value as PGC_S_DYNAMIC_DEFAULT only when
it's the limit value (2MB) and PGC_S_ENV_VAR when it's smaller?

In any case, I expect that we'd apply this patch only to HEAD, which
means that when using psql's \dconfig against a pre-v15 server,
you'd still see these settings that we're trying to hide.
That doesn't bother me too much, but maybe some would find it
confusing.

Thoughts?

			regards, tom lane