From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | bruce(at)momjian(dot)us |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
Subject: | Re: Should enum GUCs be listed as such in config.sgml? |
Date: | 2008-08-22 02:22:27 |
Message-ID: | 200808220222.m7M2MRY05093@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
bruce wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Currently, config.sgml still describes the new "enum" GUC variables
> > as being of type "string" --- but pg_settings says they are "enum".
> > This is not very consistent, but I wonder whether changing the docs
> > would be more confusing or less so. I note that section 18.1 doesn't
> > mention the enum alternative either.
>
> I looked into this and I think the documentation is fine. If enums
> didn't require quotes but strings did, we would document them
> differently, but the fact is that enums are the same as strings except
> enums have a limited number of possible values --- that isn't something
> that is usually identified in a variable type definition heading.
Looking further, it seems we still have an inconsistency problem because
pg_settings mentions enum; should we just change that to 'string'?
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2008-08-22 02:28:14 | Re: Does anything dump per-database config settings? (was Re: ALTER DATABASE vs pg_dump) |
Previous Message | Robert Treat | 2008-08-22 01:55:18 | Re: Does anything dump per-database config settings? (was Re: ALTER DATABASE vs pg_dump) |