On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 12:05 PM, Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Alex Hunsaker wrote: >> On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 10:20 AM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > I am wondering if it's a good idea to hide the redundant entries >> > to reduce clutter in the pg_settings display. (We could do this >> > by adding a "hidden" boolean to struct config_enum_entry.) >> > Thoughts? >> >> +1 >> >> > regards, tom lane >> >> Maybe something like the attached patch? > > Oops, missed that there was a patch posted already. Looks like the way > to do it (except I'd move the comment :-P) if that's the way we go.
OK, the updated patch is on pg_patches under "guc config_enum_entry add hidden field" -moved the comment into config_enum_get_options() -fixed a possible buffer underrun if every option was hidden -updated against HEAD >> I looked into just making it a string so we could use parse_bool... >> because backslash_quote seems to be the exception not the rule. But I >> decided having a hidden flag seems more useful anyway... > > It used to be a string. We don't want that, because then we can't tell > the client which possible values are available. That's the whole reason > for the creation of the enum type gucs... Well its good i did not go that route then :) > //Magnus > -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
