> On Mar 21, 2022, at 7:53 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
>> My impression is that there's not a lot of enthusiasm for the concept? If
>> that's true we maybe ought to mark the CF entry as rejected?
>
> Yeah, I'm kind of leaning that way too. I don't see how we can
> incorporate the symbolic values into any existing display paths
> without breaking applications that expect the old output.
> That being the case, it seems like we'd have "two ways to do it"
> indefinitely, which would add enough confusion that I'm not
> sure there's a net gain. In particular, I foresee novice questions
> along the lines of "I set foo to disabled, why is it showing
> as zero?"
Yeah, my main motivation here was about trying to have less special values in the config files, but I guess it would
effectivelybe making everything effectively an enum and still relies on knowing just what the specific magic values
are,no not really a net gain in this department.
For the record, I thought this would have a fairly low chance of getting in, was mainly curious what level of effort it
wouldtake to get something like this going and get some feedback on the actual idea.
> If we'd done it like this from the beginning, it'd have been
> great, but retrofitting it now is a lot less appealing.
Yeah, agreed on this. As far as I’m concerned we can reject.
Thanks,
David
