Greg Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 6 Jun 2008, Gregory Stark wrote:
>> "Greg Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> 1) Is it worthwhile to expand the information stored in the GUC structure to
>>> make it better capable of supporting machine generation and to provide more
>>> information for tool authors via pg_settings? The exact fields that should
>>> or
>>> shouldn't be included remains controversial; consider "default value",
>>> "per-session/runtime/restart", and "enum lists" as the list of things that
>>> are
>>> most needed there.
>>
>> Isn't that a list of what's *already* there?
> I should have been clearer there. Some of the items suggested are already
> in the structure, but aren't visible via pg_settings.
Well, you can't see the default or reset values in pg_settings, only the
current value. However, I fail to see the use of either of those for
a configure wizard. It'll presumably be attached to a fresh connection
so the reset value is not different from the current; and any decent
wizard is going to know perfectly well what the defaults are.
> ... In others (like the
> suggestion to add a URL to the documentation) it is actually a new field
> being added as well as its corresponding entry in the settings view.
Offhand I would argue that we should choose the URLs in such a way that
they can be derived automatically if you know the PG version number and
GUC variable name. (We're almost there already, except that you have
to know which section of the chapter it's in.) So the need to have a
pg_settings column seems questionable --- seems like it would mostly
be clutter. Perhaps instead of a view column, it would be useful to
encapsulate the algorithm as a function? pg_variable_help_url(name)
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
