Re: Doc patch, normalize search_path in index

On 01/25/2013 12:35:49 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > I have applied a modified version of your patch that creates
> separate
> > secondary index references for search_path.
>
> This patch seems pretty bizarre. What is the difference between a
> "configuration parameter" and a "run-time setting"? Why would you
> point people to two different places for those two terms?

One was the setting/querying of the parameter, the other the
purpose/impact of the setting. Somewhere in there I'm also
thinking it's a matter of the lexical token used v.s.
the functionality manipulated. One would have an _ in
between the words of the index entry, the other wouldn't.
The distinction would get all messed up by the browser
when it underlined hyperlinks.

I no longer recall the point
in making the distinction, although I believe that it came
from something to do with the vocabulary already in place
involving indexing settings and what they do. Or maybe I made it up.
In any case I don't think that the patch the Peter pushed
when he closed the commitfest entry made any distinction
between the token and the concept. Given that the difference
in sort order is the presence/absence of an _, and the
way hyperlinks are represented, I think this made the
the resulting index look best.

There was also a "use of search path to secure functions"
indexing wrapped in with the rest of the patch.

Hope this helps.

Karl <kop(at)meme(dot)com>
Free Software: "You don't pay back, you pay forward."
-- Robert A. Heinlein