Thread: BUG #16860: Documentation: GUC Parameters are not explained
The following bug has been logged on the website:
Bug reference: 16860
Logged by: Boshomi
Email address: boshomi@gmail.com
PostgreSQL version: 13.1
Operating system: all
Description:
I am missing a explanation for the abbreviation "GUC" in:
in
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/sepgsql.html#SEPGSQL-PARAMETERS
and https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/pgtrgm.html#id-1.11.7.40.7
A link to https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/config-setting.html would
be helpful.
PG Bug reporting form <noreply@postgresql.org> writes: > I am missing a explanation for the abbreviation "GUC" in: > in > https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/sepgsql.html#SEPGSQL-PARAMETERS > and https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/pgtrgm.html#id-1.11.7.40.7 It's defined in appendix L (Acronyms). It would not be sensible to duplicate the definition at every usage. regards, tom lane
Tom: On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 6:18 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > PG Bug reporting form <noreply@postgresql.org> writes: > > I am missing a explanation for the abbreviation "GUC" in: > > in > > https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/sepgsql.html#SEPGSQL-PARAMETERS > > and https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/pgtrgm.html#id-1.11.7.40.7 > It's defined in appendix L (Acronyms). It would not be sensible to > duplicate the definition at every usage. I ( not the OP ) knew the meaning ( although I had forgotten the exact words ), and managed to find it, but had to do a full search. IMO an entry in the index could be useful for it, even if it is just an acronym ( I went to the HTML manual, searched in the TOC, searched in the first couple server configuration pages, searched in the index and then resorted to full search and got the acronyms hit in the middle, it seems a bit hidden for me ). Francisco Olarte.
Francisco Olarte <folarte@peoplecall.com> writes:
> I ( not the OP ) knew the meaning ( although I had forgotten the exact
> words ), and managed to find it, but had to do a full search. IMO an
> entry in the index could be useful for it, even if it is just an
> acronym ( I went to the HTML manual, searched in the TOC, searched in
> the first couple server configuration pages, searched in the index and
> then resorted to full search and got the acronyms hit in the middle,
> it seems a bit hidden for me ).
Hmm. I'd supposed that the entries in the acronym list (and the
glossary, now that we've got that ... I wonder why they are separate)
had <indexterm>s, but now I see they don't. I would not be opposed to
adding index entries.
regards, tom lane