Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> bruce wrote: >>> Tom Lane wrote: >>>> Currently, config.sgml still describes the new "enum" GUC variables >>>> as being of type "string" --- but pg_settings says they are "enum". >>>> This is not very consistent, but I wonder whether changing the docs >>>> would be more confusing or less so. I note that section 18.1 doesn't >>>> mention the enum alternative either. >>> I looked into this and I think the documentation is fine. If enums >>> didn't require quotes but strings did, we would document them >>> differently, but the fact is that enums are the same as strings except >>> enums have a limited number of possible values --- that isn't something >>> that is usually identified in a variable type definition heading. > > By that logic, we should not distinguish integers and floats. One's > just a restricted form of the other. > >> Looking further, it seems we still have an inconsistency problem because >> pg_settings mentions enum; should we just change that to 'string'? > > No, and in fact pg_settings is the counterexample to your conclusion > that it's okay to pretend enums are the same as strings: since it has an > enumvals column that's populated for enums and not for strings, there > is clearly a genuine user-visible difference. > > > Last I checked, Magnus had promised to come up with suitable > documentation changes for this patch, but then he went off sailing...
Yes, it's on my TODO list waiting to bubble up to the top. Not forgotten (yet). //Magnus -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
