Re: Hiding undocumented enum values?

On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 12:05 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
> Alex Hunsaker wrote:
>> On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 10:20 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> > I am wondering if it's a good idea to hide the redundant entries
>> > to reduce clutter in the pg_settings display. (We could do this
>> > by adding a "hidden" boolean to struct config_enum_entry.)
>> > Thoughts?
>>
>> +1
>>
>> > regards, tom lane
>>
>> Maybe something like the attached patch?
>
> Oops, missed that there was a patch posted already. Looks like the way
> to do it (except I'd move the comment :-P) if that's the way we go.

OK, the updated patch is on pg_patches under "guc config_enum_entry
add hidden field"

-moved the comment into config_enum_get_options()
-fixed a possible buffer underrun if every option was hidden
-updated against HEAD

>> I looked into just making it a string so we could use parse_bool...
>> because backslash_quote seems to be the exception not the rule. But I
>> decided having a hidden flag seems more useful anyway...
>
> It used to be a string. We don't want that, because then we can't tell
> the client which possible values are available. That's the whole reason
> for the creation of the enum type gucs...

Well its good i did not go that route then :)

> //Magnus
>