* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > > If we're going to abbreviate transaction, I'd vote for txn over tran, > > but I think Stephen's point that this is already a lost cause may have > > some validity. Not sure what other people think.
I agree w/ reducing that particular GUC a bit in size, but just to make
it clear- that doesn't even come close to solving or fixing the
80-character terminal issue wrt 'show all;'...
> Aren't we already using "xact" for that purpose in some user-visible
> places? But personally I'd be happy with "max_pred_locks_per_transaction"
> which gets the worst case down without being too obviously at variance
> with "max_locks_per_transaction".
Sounds good to me. The header length for show all would drop to only 206
characters (or so) with that change. If we offered a 'show all;' which
didn't include 'description' and didn't have any settings longer than
about 46 characters, *then* it'd fit on an 80-char terminal. Of course,
if we had multi-line GUC support, we could put each field on a new line
and each of those is well under 46 characters..
Thanks,
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
