On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 03:58:57PM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote: > I'm at -0.5 as to whether such a patch would actually be an improvement or > whether the added possibilities would just be confusing and, because it is > all optional, indefinitely so.
FWIW, I find this proposition of introducing a set of optional synonyms to map with some special-case values we have in the configurations a bit confusing, as that's basically introducing enum-like options into GUCs that already have a type assigned. The patch, with its set of options like special_disabled0, special_disabled_all is not really easy to parse either so that's just a recipe to make the set of synonyms to grow on an GUC-basis. What I am wondering, though, is if there are cases in the existing GUCs, with their existing types, where the situation of a default or disabled value could be improved, though, to make the overall picture more consistent. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
