Re: [patch] GUC source file and line number]

On Wed, 3 Sep 2008, Tom Lane wrote:

>> "Default value if the parameter is not explicitly set"
> If that statement were the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
> truth, and if it didn't ignore the point about "explicitly set WHERE?",
> I'd be fine with it.

First question--how about if I changed that description to read:

"Default value used at server startup if the parameter is not explicitly
set"?

I could then expose reset-val, named like that and with a description that
explained the context it applies in. And then we've give people a way to
experiment and understand the FAQ of "why didn't the value go back to the
default when I commented it out of the postgresql.conf and HUP'd the
server?".

Section question: with those changes, would it then be reasonable to you
to keep that column named "default" instead of giving it a less common
name?

> You are adopting a very narrow mindset, which seems to be that only DBAs
> look at this view.

DBAs are the only group I am always getting questions in this area from.
Everybody else seemed happy with the status quo, where the value wasn't
exposed at all and you just looked in guc.c to see what it was.

About once a month, somebody asks me "how can I tell what the default is
for *X*?" I want to be able to answer this question with "look in
pg_settings", which is easy enough to remember, and not have to say
anything else. That's the source of my mindset here, and I'm sure I'm not
alone in fielding that so often.

--
* Greg Smith gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD