Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> > Euler Taveira de Oliveira wrote:
> >> My English is not as good as yours but here is another try. Personally, I
> >> prefer the second one but...
>
> > Great, I used your second version. I had already done some of the ones
> > you found, but you had many more. I also used your "0 disables" wording
> > consistently in the file. Thanks for the help. Committed.
>
> You know, it suddenly strikes me that this is going in largely the wrong
> direction. Wasn't a key part of the reasoning for the GUC units support
> to *eliminate* the need for people to know what the underlying
> variable's unit is? I certainly think that putting the unit info into
> the text descriptions is a seriously bad idea. It makes an already
> overly wide view even wider, and the information is 100% redundant with
> the "unit" column of the pg_settings view.
Right, the problem particularly is with the -1/special values that don't
have a real unit.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
