Re: Should enum GUCs be listed as such in config.sgml?
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Should enum GUCs be listed as such in config.sgml? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4416.1219509592@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Should enum GUCs be listed as such in config.sgml? (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Should enum GUCs be listed as such in config.sgml?
Re: Should enum GUCs be listed as such in config.sgml? |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes: > bruce wrote: >> Tom Lane wrote: >>> Currently, config.sgml still describes the new "enum" GUC variables >>> as being of type "string" --- but pg_settings says they are "enum". >>> This is not very consistent, but I wonder whether changing the docs >>> would be more confusing or less so. I note that section 18.1 doesn't >>> mention the enum alternative either. >> >> I looked into this and I think the documentation is fine. If enums >> didn't require quotes but strings did, we would document them >> differently, but the fact is that enums are the same as strings except >> enums have a limited number of possible values --- that isn't something >> that is usually identified in a variable type definition heading. By that logic, we should not distinguish integers and floats. One's just a restricted form of the other. > Looking further, it seems we still have an inconsistency problem because > pg_settings mentions enum; should we just change that to 'string'? No, and in fact pg_settings is the counterexample to your conclusion that it's okay to pretend enums are the same as strings: since it has an enumvals column that's populated for enums and not for strings, there is clearly a genuine user-visible difference. Last I checked, Magnus had promised to come up with suitable documentation changes for this patch, but then he went off sailing... regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: