| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Hiding undocumented enum values? |
| Date: | 2008-05-27 16:20:45 |
| Message-ID: | 5099.1211905245@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
There are several GUC enums that accept values that aren't documented
anywhere; the worst offender being backslash_quote, which has more
undocumented spellings than documented ones:
/*
* Although only "on", "off", and "safe_encoding" are documented, we
* accept all the likely variants of "on" and "off".
*/
static const struct config_enum_entry backslash_quote_options[] = {
{"safe_encoding", BACKSLASH_QUOTE_SAFE_ENCODING},
{"on", BACKSLASH_QUOTE_ON},
{"off", BACKSLASH_QUOTE_OFF},
{"true", BACKSLASH_QUOTE_ON},
{"false", BACKSLASH_QUOTE_OFF},
{"yes", BACKSLASH_QUOTE_ON},
{"no", BACKSLASH_QUOTE_OFF},
{"1", BACKSLASH_QUOTE_ON},
{"0", BACKSLASH_QUOTE_OFF},
{NULL, 0}
};
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?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gregory Stark | 2008-05-27 16:36:31 | Re: Hiding undocumented enum values? |
| Previous Message | Aidan Van Dyk | 2008-05-27 14:50:11 | Re: WITH RECURSIVE patches V0.1 TODO items |