Re: Hiding undocumented enum values?

From: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
To: "Alex Hunsaker" <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Hiding undocumented enum values?
Date: 2008-05-27 18:05:45
Message-ID: 20080527200545.33460bcb@mha-laptop.hagander.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Alex Hunsaker wrote:
> On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 10:20 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > I am wondering if it's a good idea to hide the redundant entries
> > to reduce clutter in the pg_settings display. (We could do this
> > by adding a "hidden" boolean to struct config_enum_entry.)
> > Thoughts?
>
> +1
>
> > regards, tom lane
>
> Maybe something like the attached patch?

Oops, missed that there was a patch posted already. Looks like the way
to do it (except I'd move the comment :-P) if that's the way we go.

> I looked into just making it a string so we could use parse_bool...
> because backslash_quote seems to be the exception not the rule. But I
> decided having a hidden flag seems more useful anyway...

It used to be a string. We don't want that, because then we can't tell
the client which possible values are available. That's the whole reason
for the creation of the enum type gucs...

//Magnus

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Magnus Hagander 2008-05-27 18:19:20 Re: Remove redundant extra_desc info for enum GUC variables?
Previous Message Magnus Hagander 2008-05-27 18:03:59 Re: Hiding undocumented enum values?