Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: more i18n/l10n issues

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Postgresql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: more i18n/l10n issues
Date: 2003-09-29 16:17:19
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:

>The point was to allow a GUI utility to be built that would help in
>editing postgresql.conf.  It couldn't assume the postmaster is already
>running, so just extending the pg_config view wouldn't answer, and
>duplicating knowledge of all the GUC variables in a separate tool
>would have created maintenance headaches.  I would like to think that
>the patch would eventually allow us to generate postgresql.conf.sample
>automatically from the guc.c tables, and thereby reduce the number of
>files to maintain, but that didn't get done yet.  The reason for having
>both "long" and "short" descriptions of the variables was that I foresaw
>the "short" versions as becoming the per-line comments in
>postgresql.conf.  The "long" descriptions were what the GUI tool wants.
I have been wondering if moving to XML for config files might be a good 
idea - and if there are going to be GUIs that write them that gives some 
more impetus to the idea.

This occurred to me as I was writing the token replacement stuff for 
initdb.c, and I realised how fragile it was - a misplaced space and you 
are hosed.

Or would it be overkill?



In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Zeugswetter Andreas SB SDDate: 2003-09-29 16:20:00
Subject: Re: 2-phase commit
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2003-09-29 15:59:18
Subject: Re: pg_dump no longer honors --no-reconnect

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group