Greetings,
On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 21:03 Justin Pryzby <pry...@telsasoft.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 09, 2023 at 03:02:29PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Justin Pryzby (pry...@telsasoft.com) wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 09, 2023 at 09:34:10AM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > > > * Nathan Bossart (nathandboss...@gmail.com) wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 10:13:17AM -0800, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> > > > > > On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 07:32:56PM -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > > > > >> On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 08:18:52PM -0800, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> > > > > >>> I'm curious why you chose to make this a string instead of an
> enum. There
> > > > > >>> might be little practical difference, but since there are only
> three
> > > > > >>> possible values, I wonder if it'd be better form to make it an
> enum.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> It takes more code to write as an enum - see 002.txt. I'm not
> convinced
> > > > > >> this is better.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> But your comment made me fix its <type>, and reconsider the
> strings,
> > > > > >> which I changed to active={unknown/true/false} rather than
> {unk/on/off}.
> > > > > >> It could also be active={unknown/yes/no}...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think unknown/true/false is fine. I'm okay with using a
> string if no one
> > > > > > else thinks it should be an enum (or a bool).
> > > > >
> > > > > There's been no response for this, so I guess we can proceed with
> a string
> > > > > GUC.
> > > >
> > > > Just happened to see this and I'm not really a fan of this being a
> > > > string when it's pretty clear that's not what it actually is.
> > >
> > > I don't understand what you mean by that.
> > > Why do you say it isn't a string ?
> >
> > Because it's clearly a yes/no, either the server is currently running
> > with huge pages, or it isn't. That's the definition of a boolean.
>
> I originally implemented it as a boolean, and I changed it in response
> to the feedback that postgres -C huge_pages_active should return
> "unknown".
I really don’t see how that’s at all useful.
> > Is there an agreement to use a function, instead ?
>
> Alvaro was -1 on using a function
I don’t entirely get that argument (select thisfunc(); is much worse than
show thisguc; ..? Also, the former is easier to use with other functions
and such, as you don’t have to do current_setting(‘thisguc’)…).
Andres is +0 (?)
Kinda felt like this was closer to +0.5 or more, for my part anyway.
Nathan is +1
> Stephen is +1
>
> I'm -0.5,
Why..?
but I reimplemented it as a function.
Thanks!
I hope that helps it to
> progress. Please include a suggestion if there's better place for the
> function or global var.
Will try to give it a look tomorrow.
Thanks again!
Stephen
>
