Re: Should enum GUCs be listed as such in config.sgml?

From: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Should enum GUCs be listed as such in config.sgml?
Date: 2008-11-21 19:42:36
Message-ID: 49270F2C.90403@hagander.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Last I checked, Magnus had promised to come up with suitable
>>> documentation changes for this patch, but then he went off sailing...
>
>> Meh, I seem to have forgotten this one again. Here's a suggestion, seems
>> ok, or were you thinking about something more?
>
> Needs a bit of proofreading but this is more or less what I had in
> mind.
>
>> + Enum settings are specified the same way as string settings, but they
>> + are limited in which strings are accepted. For each setting the available
>> + are listed in <literal>pg_settings.enumvals</>.
>
> IIRC the comparisons are case-insensitive; if so the fact should be
> mentioned here.

Updated, added, and applied.

//Magnus

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2008-11-21 20:05:07 Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Silence compiler warning about ignored return value.
Previous Message Tom Lane 2008-11-21 19:31:23 Re: Autoconf, libpq and replacement function