| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Fernando Nasser <fnasser(at)redhat(dot)com>, Dave Page <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>, Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: postgres --help-config |
| Date: | 2003-10-17 00:04:30 |
| Message-ID: | 16844.1066349070@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> Tom Lane writes:
> I think there are two ways this can be resolved:
> 1) Leave it this way, deal with it, but then we can put everything in one
> field and let the software parse out the first sentence automatically.
>>
>> True.
> I like the first option. But we'll have to break the string freeze either
> way.
Fernando pointed out to me that the separate-fields approach does help
make it obvious that the first sentence of the description has special
status and needs to be able to stand on its own. If we merge the
descriptions into one field, it'll be easier to make the kind of mistake
I made with "check_function_bodies".
So I'm back to the opinion that the current setup is not broken, other
than that the fields are misleadingly named, which we could fix easily.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-10-17 00:17:39 | Re: Some thoughts about i/o priorities and throttling vacuum |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-10-17 00:00:20 | Re: postgres --help-config |