Re: describe special values in GUC descriptions more consistently - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Smith
Subject Re: describe special values in GUC descriptions more consistently
Date
Msg-id CAHut+Pvx599kYqZaadZuVAtiqnfZDwgRUBzM7pnzEZjSSPEpCA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: describe special values in GUC descriptions more consistently  (Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: describe special values in GUC descriptions more consistently
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 9:25 AM Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 08:29:28AM +1100, Peter Smith wrote:
> > +1 for this. Your wording examples below look good to me..
>
> Okay, how does this look?
>
> --

v2 mostly looked good to me. Just a couple of questions.

~~~

1.
  {"shared_memory_size_in_huge_pages", PGC_INTERNAL, PRESET_OPTIONS,
  gettext_noop("Shows the number of huge pages needed for the main
shared memory area."),
- gettext_noop("-1 indicates that the value could not be determined."),
+ gettext_noop("-1 means the value could not be determined."),

I didn't know what that meant. And the docs seem worded differently. More like:
"-1 means huge pages are not supported."

~~~

2.
- gettext_noop("An empty string indicates that \"archive_command\"
should be used.")
+ gettext_noop("An empty string means \"archive_command\" should be used.")

Should that be worded more like other ones that delegate to other GUCs:

"An empty string means use \"archive_command\"."

~~~

3.

What is the difference between "system setting" and "system default",
or should those be made the same?

======
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: RFC: Allow EXPLAIN to Output Page Fault Information
Next
From: Sami Imseih
Date:
Subject: Re: Proposal to CREATE FOREIGN TABLE LIKE