Alex Hunsaker wrote: > 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"
Thanks, I've reviewed and applied. > -moved the comment into config_enum_get_options() I moved it again, to the header :-) > -fixed a possible buffer underrun if every option was hidden That fix didn't take into account the possibility of having different prefixes. Since it is a pretty stupid thing to have a GUC enum with *only* hidden entries, I just made it do nothing in this case and updated the comment. The buffer underrun check is still there. > >> 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 :) Yup :) //Magnus -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers