> 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.
> 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.
Thanks for your review.
I have created a patch in response to your suggestion.
I wasn't sure about USERSET, so I only created documentation for
is_superuser.
Regards,
Kotaro Kawamoto.