Alex Hunsaker wrote:
> On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 12:05 PM, Magnus Hagander
> <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
> > Alex Hunsaker wrote:
> >> On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 10:20 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
> >> wrote:
> >> > 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?
> >>
> >> +1
> >>
> >> > regards, tom lane
> >>
> >> Maybe something like the attached patch?
> >
> > Oops, missed that there was a patch posted already. Looks like the
> > way to do it (except I'd move the comment :-P) if that's the way we
> > go.
>
> OK, the updated patch is on pg_patches under "guc config_enum_entry
> add hidden field"
Thanks, I've reviewed and applied.
> -moved the comment into config_enum_get_options()
I moved it again, to the header :-)
> -fixed a possible buffer underrun if every option was hidden
That fix didn't take into account the possibility of having different
prefixes. Since it is a pretty stupid thing to have a GUC enum with
*only* hidden entries, I just made it do nothing in this case and
updated the comment. The buffer underrun check is still there.
> >> I looked into just making it a string so we could use parse_bool...
> >> because backslash_quote seems to be the exception not the rule.
> >> But I decided having a hidden flag seems more useful anyway...
> >
> > It used to be a string. We don't want that, because then we can't
> > tell the client which possible values are available. That's the
> > whole reason for the creation of the enum type gucs...
>
> Well its good i did not go that route then :)
Yup :)
//Magnus
