| From: | Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: How about a psql backslash command to show GUCs? |
| Date: | 2022-04-07 16:19:33 |
| Message-ID: | FF230C05-B27A-4C7B-8514-A5A21EA3D7CC@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On Apr 7, 2022, at 6:21 AM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
>
> \dconf seems fine to me
We have too many synonyms for configuration parameters. "config", "guc", "parameter", and "setting" are already in use. I thought we agreed on the other thread that "setting" means the value, and "parameter" is the thing being set. It's true that "config" refers to parameters in the name of pg_catalog.set_config, which is a pretty strong precedent, but sadly "config" also refers to configuration files, the build configuration (as in the "pg_config" tool), text search configuration, etc.
While grep'ing through doc/src/sgml, I see no instances of "conf" ever referring to configuration parameters. It only ever refers to configuration files. I'd prefer not adding it to the list of synonyms.
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2022-04-07 16:22:22 | Re: How about a psql backslash command to show GUCs? |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2022-04-07 16:15:44 | Re: should vacuum's first heap pass be read-only? |