Re: Remove redundant extra_desc info for enum GUC variables? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Magnus Hagander
Subject Re: Remove redundant extra_desc info for enum GUC variables?
Date
Msg-id 20080527201920.7bbf4992@mha-laptop.hagander.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Remove redundant extra_desc info for enum GUC variables?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Remove redundant extra_desc info for enum GUC variables?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List 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


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Magnus Hagander
Date:
Subject: Re: Hiding undocumented enum values?
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: ERRORDATA_STACK_SIZE panic crashes on Windows