From: | Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org, Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: RESET command seems pretty disjointed now |
Date: | 2007-04-16 00:07:54 |
Message-ID: | 4622BE5A.6060101@paradise.net.nz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> The current documentation for RESET exhibits a certain lack of, um,
> intellectual cohesiveness:
>
> Name
>
> RESET -- restore the value of a run-time parameter to the default value
>
> Synopsis
>
> RESET configuration_parameter
> RESET ALL
> RESET { PLANS | SESSION | TEMP | TEMPORARY }
>
>
> That one-line summary has got approximately zip to do with the newly
> added options; as does most of the Description section. At the very
> least this manual page needs an extensive rewrite. But I wonder whether
> the real problem isn't that we chose a bad name for the new commands.
> Is there another keyword we could use instead of RESET? A concrete
> objection to the current state of affairs is that absolutely anyone,
> looking at this set of options with no prior knowledge of PG, would
> expect that RESET ALL subsumes all the other cases.
Maybe DISCARD for the plans etc might be more intuitive than extending
RESET?
Mark
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Florian G. Pflug | 2007-04-16 01:48:57 | Re: Build-Problem with pgc.c on OSX 10.4 |
Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2007-04-15 23:00:23 | SoC Students/Projects selected |