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

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: How about a psql backslash command to show GUCs?
Date: 2022-04-07 16:29:33
Message-ID: 3370142.1649348973@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> We have too many synonyms for configuration parameters. "config", "guc", "parameter", and "setting" are already in use. I thought we agreed on the other thread that "setting" means the value, and "parameter" is the thing being set.

Right, so the suggestion of \dsetting seems a tad off-kilter.

> It's true that "config" refers to parameters in the name of pg_catalog.set_config, which is a pretty strong precedent, but sadly "config" also refers to configuration files, the build configuration (as in the "pg_config" tool), text search configuration, etc.

I'd also thought briefly about \dpar or \dparam, but I'm not sure that
that's much of an improvement. \dconf is at least in line with the
docs' terminology of "configuration parameter". (Note that bare
"parameter" has other meanings too, eg function parameter.) I wouldn't
fight too hard if people want to lengthen it to \dconfig for consistency
with set_config().

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jonathan S. Katz 2022-04-07 16:29:35 Re: How about a psql backslash command to show GUCs?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2022-04-07 16:22:22 Re: How about a psql backslash command to show GUCs?