Re: postgres --help-config - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: postgres --help-config
Date
Msg-id 16844.1066349070@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: postgres --help-config  (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> Tom Lane writes:
> I think there are two ways this can be resolved:
> 1) Leave it this way, deal with it, but then we can put everything in one
> field and let the software parse out the first sentence automatically.
>> 
>> True.

> I like the first option.  But we'll have to break the string freeze either
> way.

Fernando pointed out to me that the separate-fields approach does help
make it obvious that the first sentence of the description has special
status and needs to be able to stand on its own.  If we merge the
descriptions into one field, it'll be easier to make the kind of mistake
I made with "check_function_bodies".

So I'm back to the opinion that the current setup is not broken, other
than that the fields are misleadingly named, which we could fix easily.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: postgres --help-config
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Some thoughts about i/o priorities and throttling vacuum