Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Last I checked, Magnus had promised to come up with suitable
>>> documentation changes for this patch, but then he went off sailing...
>
>> Meh, I seem to have forgotten this one again. Here's a suggestion, seems
Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Last I checked, Magnus had promised to come up with suitable
>> documentation changes for this patch, but then he went off sailing...
> Meh, I seem to have forgotten this one again. Here's a suggestion, seems
> ok, or were you thinki
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 ch
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 ch
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
>>> wou
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
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
>
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
>
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 alternat
