From: | Aizaz Ahmed <aahmed(at)redhat(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org, Fernando Nasser <fnasser(at)redhat(dot)com>, Aizaz Ahmed <aahmed(at)redhat(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] allowed user/db variables |
Date: | 2003-07-28 14:41:29 |
Message-ID: | 1059403288.19897.11.camel@toffee.toronto.redhat.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
On Sun, 2003-07-27 at 01:29, Joe Conway wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Patch applied. Thanks.
> /*
> ! * Used for pg_settings. Keep in sync with config_type enum in guc_tables.h
> */
> static char *config_type_name[] =
> {
> ***************
> *** 176,181 ****
> --- 176,182 ----
> "sighup",
> "backend",
> "super-user",
> + "userlimit",
> "user"
> };
looks like there's some duplication between this array and the
static const char *const GucContext_names[] array in
src/backend/utils/misc/help_config.c
Is there some way we could have them both use the same array? (it
doesn't matter for help_config whether the names are upper- or
lower-case.)
Also, as a side note, I don't think Tom is a big fan of using comments
to indicate what needs to be kept in sync with what, if I can take the
liberty to quote him the last time a situation like this arose:
Re: [PATCHES] fix for new SUSET GUC variables
Mon, 14 Jul 2003 16:33:14 -0400
> We don't normally try to enumerate in comments all the places you'd
> need to change when adding to an enum or other widely-used
> definition. You're supposed to find them by searching the source code
> for references to the existing values. Depending on comments for that
> sort of thing is far too error-prone --- you can just about guarantee
> that the comment will fail to track new uses.
Thanks,
Aizaz
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-07-28 14:49:13 | Re: Error code mixup? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-07-28 14:28:25 | Re: "is_superuser" parameter creates inconsistencies |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-07-28 14:57:28 | Re: [HACKERS] allowed user/db variables |
Previous Message | Steven Vajdic | 2003-07-28 04:06:14 | Sorry/spam - how do you unsubscribe? |