| From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Remove redundant extra_desc info for enum GUC variables? |
| Date: | 2008-05-27 18:19:20 |
| Message-ID: | 20080527201920.7bbf4992@mha-laptop.hagander.net |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Most of the GUC variables that have been converted to enums have an
> extra_desc string that lists the valid values --- in HEAD, try
> SELECT name,extra_desc,enumvals from pg_settings where vartype =
> 'enum';
>
> ISTM this is just about 100% redundant with the enumvals column and
> should be removed to reduce translation and maintenance effort.
> Any objections?
No, seems like the correct thing to do.
> One point of interest is that for client_min_messages and
> log_min_messages, the ordering of the values has significance, and
> it's different for the two cases. The enum patch has lost that info
> by trying to use the same auxiliary list for both variables. But
> having two lists doesn't seem like an excessive amount of overhead.
Is there any actual reason why they're supposed to be treated
differently?
//Magnus
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-05-27 18:20:01 | Re: ERRORDATA_STACK_SIZE panic crashes on Windows |
| Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2008-05-27 18:05:45 | Re: Hiding undocumented enum values? |