Re: pgsql/ oc/src/sgml/release.sgml rc/backend/com ...
От | Joe Conway |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pgsql/ oc/src/sgml/release.sgml rc/backend/com ... |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 3D39B6FC.4040605@joeconway.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | pgsql/ oc/src/sgml/release.sgml rc/backend/com ... (tgl@postgresql.org (Tom Lane)) |
Ответы |
Re: pgsql/ oc/src/sgml/release.sgml rc/backend/com ...
|
Список | pgsql-committers |
Tom Lane wrote: > Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com> writes: > Okay, so the question is what tablefunc wants to do. I'd guess it > wants to duplicate the set of info returned by SHOW ALL. Yes, I think that makes sense. > I put in GUC_NO_SHOW_ALL when I was hacking on GUC a few months ago > to make it able to implement the last few SET variables that had > one-of-a-kind behavior. One of those one-of-a-kind behaviors was that > some of them didn't show up in SHOW ALL. I suppose this is arguably > a bug and not really behavior we want to preserve --- although SHOW SEED > will *never* return anything useful and so it's not clear why SHOW ALL > should bother to show it. > > If NO_SHOW_ALL bothers you, feel free to put its removal up to a > pghackers vote. I'm not wedded to it. It doesn't really bother me ;). I just didn't understand why it existed. I do think that it is conceivable that we want to be able to suppress the examination of some settings, but I would think that would apply to SHOW just the same as SHOW ALL. It seems that anything I can SHOW should be there when I do SHOW ALL. Maybe it should be GUC_NO_SHOW and apply to both? Joe
В списке pgsql-committers по дате отправления: