From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Add support for logging the current role |
Date: | 2011-02-11 16:33:23 |
Message-ID: | 20110211163323.GN4116@tamriel.snowman.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > If we're going to abbreviate transaction, I'd vote for txn over tran,
> > but I think Stephen's point that this is already a lost cause may have
> > some validity. Not sure what other people think.
I agree w/ reducing that particular GUC a bit in size, but just to make
it clear- that doesn't even come close to solving or fixing the
80-character terminal issue wrt 'show all;'...
> Aren't we already using "xact" for that purpose in some user-visible
> places? But personally I'd be happy with "max_pred_locks_per_transaction"
> which gets the worst case down without being too obviously at variance
> with "max_locks_per_transaction".
Sounds good to me. The header length for show all would drop to only 206
characters (or so) with that change. If we offered a 'show all;' which
didn't include 'description' and didn't have any settings longer than
about 46 characters, *then* it'd fit on an 80-char terminal. Of course,
if we had multi-line GUC support, we could put each field on a new line
and each of those is well under 46 characters..
Thanks,
Stephen
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-02-11 16:36:36 | Re: SQL/MED - file_fdw |
Previous Message | Itagaki Takahiro | 2011-02-11 16:31:16 | Re: SQL/MED - file_fdw |