Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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?
The Attached patch does just that...
guc_config_enu
Jeff Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 2008-05-27 at 12:08 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> How about "... converts an array of modifier(s) for ..."?
> Sounds good to me.
OK, done.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-patches mailing list (pgsql-patches@postgresql.org
On Tue, 2008-05-27 at 12:08 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Yeah, this text is a holdover from the original user-definable-modifiers
> patch, in which the modifiers indeed had to be numbers. I don't quite
> like your suggestion of using "textual", though, because that makes it
> sound like the input and
Jeff Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> From
> http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/sql-createtype.html :
> type_modifier_input_function
> The name of a function that converts numeric modifier(s) for the
> type into internal form.
Yeah, this text is a holdover from the
From
http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/sql-createtype.html :
type_modifier_input_function
The name of a function that converts numeric modifier(s) for the
type into internal form.
type_modifier_output_function
The name of a function
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Tom Lane replied:
>> Documentation patch by Kevin L. McBride explaining LOCK_DEBUG options
>> in detail.
> Should this stuff really go into the SGML documentation, when these
> options will certainly never be enabled anywhere except in develope
